User talk:Nussun05

Hi Nussun 05,

As you may have seen in the above section, along with the above topic on this page, VY Canis Majoris' article shows Lbol of 178,000. I used this to calculate the radius, then, referencing the reference from the article, I added the size to the New List. But you seemed to have undone my edit. I have re-done this edit, and before you undo it again, check the article again and on Vizier.

Thanks! PNSMurthy (talk) 01:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Please cite that article and the article where the temperature comes from. Both at the same time. Nussun05 (talk) 05:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

A luminosity of 178,000 for VY Canis Majoris was derived from ^[1] this. It stated so in this namesake discussion's article.PNSMurthy (talk) 06:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

That article does not give a temperature, you’re gonna have to cite the ref that gives the temperature (from 2012) too. Nussun05 (talk) 06:05, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

See the WP article for VYCma, and see the starbox catalogue for temperature. This source is from there. I haven't actually gone through the source. If there is no temperature, the article is wrong, or someone has provided the wrong source,PNSMurthy (talk) 06:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I have already checked the article many times, there are no temperatures given!!! Nussun05 (talk) 06:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

See this:

More information starbox for VYCma, Constellation ...

starbox for VYCma

Nussun05 Location of VY CMa (circled) Observation data Epoch J2000.0      Equinox J2000.0 Constellation Canis Major Right ascension 07h 22m 58.32877s[2] Declination −25° 46′ 03.2355″[2] Apparent magnitude (V) 6.5 - 9.6[3] Characteristics Evolutionary stage Red hypergiant Spectral type M3–M4.5[4] (M2.5[5] - M5e Ia[6]) Apparent magnitude (U) 12.01[7] Apparent magnitude (B) 10.19[7] Apparent magnitude (V) 7.95[7] Apparent magnitude (J) 1.98[7] Apparent magnitude (H) 0.44[7] Apparent magnitude (K) 8.1[8] U−B color index +2.32[9] B−V color index +2.057[2] V−R color index +2.20[9] Variable type SRc[3] or Lc[10] Astrometry Radial velocity (Rv) 41[11] km/s Proper motion (μ) RA: 9.84[2] mas/yr Dec.: 0.75[2] mas/yr Parallax (π) 0.83±0.08 mas[12] Distance ~3,820+260 −230 ly (1,170+80 −70[4] pc) Details Mass 17±8[4] M☉ Radius 1,420±120[4] R☉ Luminosity 178,000+40,900 −29,900[13] L☉ Surface gravity (log g) −0.6±0.4[4] cgs Temperature 3,490±90[4] K Metallicity [Fe/H] −0.3[14] dex Rotational velocity (v sin i) 300[12] km/s Age 8.2[12] Myr Other designations VY CMa, HD 58061, HIP 35793, CD-25 4441, AAVSO 0718-25, IRAS 07209-2540, IRC −30087, RAFGL 1111, SAO 173571, WDS J07230-2546AB, 2MASS J07225830-2546030 Database references SIMBAD data

Close

That was the starbox. the luminosity is given!

As you can see the temperature is from a different ref. Nussun05 (talk) 07:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh... sorry!PNSMurthy (talk) 09:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Simbad thinks designations starting Q are quasars, and Cygni or Cyg is not a valid format for such a designation. Might not realise there is a problem with this object, or couldn't be bothered coding an exception for just one star. Lithopsian (talk) 14:41, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Nussun05, and welcome to Wikipedia. I edit here too, under the username Lithopsian, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, V774 Sagittarii, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/V774 Sagittarii.

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not ballot-polls. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Lithopsian}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Lithopsian (talk) 14:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, do you think the page should be deleted, or should I try to improve it? Nussun05 (talk) 16:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I think it should be deleted, at least for now. I can't see any way it could pass WP:NASTCRIT. That's out of my hands for now, though, and we'll find out if I was right in about a week. You're welcome to work on the article while the deletion discussion takes place. It can be a good way to demonstrate that it really is a notable object. Or it can be a waste of effort if it gets deleted anyway. I suspect it will get redirected to something, maybe the list of largest stars since it isn't mentioned anywhere else. It can always be brought back in the future if it really turns out to be notable in some way. Lithopsian (talk) 19:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Lithopsian laid out a large table of the parameters of stars given in Ren et al. 2020 on Talk:List of largest stars. However, I feel precaution needs to be taken before any are added. We must find if any of these stars are already present in the list, at smaller values. Secondly, a few values in the table are wildly unreliable, such as WOH S173 at 13,108 R_☉, which is clearly impossible for any normal star according to our current understanding of stars. HD 269352 at 2,549 R_☉ seems very extreme as well, and M33 342 at 2,122 R_☉ seems potentially dubious. Faren29 (talk), 20:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Nussun05. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of reddest stars in the night sky".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry for my arguments with you last year, I now realize I wasn't acting mature when we were discussing. Sorry, and please forgive me. The Space Enthusiast (talk) 10:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

No it's fine, I forgive you. Nussun05 (talk) 19:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok, Thanks.The Space Enthusiast (talk) 04:17, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on List of largest stars by angular diameter requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 15:41, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Delete it, the redirect is not needed anyway. Nussun05 (talk) 15:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

nussun (talk) 15:18, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Cool! It even has the colors of stars, from hottest to coolest !- The Space Enthusiast (talk) 02:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! nussun (talk) 10:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Why did you add 4 black holes, that cannot be found online, And claim all of them to be larger then TON 618, even though you have NO proof and NO information to prove it. Please I want to know why you did this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.235.152.239 (talk) 06:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I regret adding those, they aren't as large as the likely dubious values that the paper said. Even then saying there's no proof is incorrect, as I did put a citation to a paper. nussun (talk) 07:07, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I remember those absurdly-large Black holes.-The Space Enthusiast (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Template:New list of largest stars row has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:59, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Template:New solar radius calculator has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:59, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

This particular paper (^[1]) has only been used to describe the nomenclature of Stephenson 2-18, as in Stephenson 2-DFK 1. However, I found several interesting things which could be added:

1. The paper measures the radial velocity of Stephenson 2 and other Red supergiant clusters, using Silicon Oxide and Infrared Carbon Monoxide emissions: They measured Stephenson 2 DFK 49's and Stephenson 2 DFK 2's radial velocity, and even included Stephenson 2 DFK 1 (St2-18). Both DFK 49 and 2 had a radial velocity of 101 kilometers per second, but Stephenson 2-DFK 1's radial velocity is lower, around 89 kilometers per second, meaning it is a field RSG unrelated to Stephenson 2.

2. Using the calculations of radial velocities from their own study and Davies 2007, they estimate Stephenson 2's distance to be 5.83 kiloparsecs, or 19,015 light years.

3. A suggestion that RSGC3's mass is likely between 20,000 solar masses to 40,000 solar masses. What are your thoughts?--The Space Enthusiast (talk) 07:46, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Nussun05,

Thank you for creating Red supergiant problem.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Might best be mentioned at supernova where the context will be clearer

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Lithopsian}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Lithopsian (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I can't find a good place to add a section for it. nussun (talk) 09:33, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

How about Supernova#Progenitor? It already mentions that high-mass red supergiant progenitors are not observed and offers a reason why. Lithopsian (talk) 13:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Hmm should probably mention in inline but I don't know how to in a good way there. nussun (talk) 13:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I've read the past section that you made on Talk:List of galaxies page, where you want to add a new list for the largest galaxies.

I'd made one here: Draft:List of largest galaxies. It's not quite yet done, but I think it's good enough to have its merits.

If you are interested, you can check out the draft and see for yourself. I'd contacted Parejkoj but there are no replies from him yet. SkyFlubbler (talk) 08:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I apologize for my frequent inactivity on discord. I cannot create an email account that well. May we communicate here?--The Space Enthusiast (talk) 02:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Why can't you log in to the same account? VY Canis Majoris (talk) 05:06, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello. I have visited Joseph Pelobello's channel on the list of largest stars and I found out a couple of things.

1.You are making a video on the problems with space channels.

I am genuinely interested about what this could be.

2.People are calling out that ESO 383-76's size is based on just one measurement and not considering the others.

I have to ask SkyFlubbler about this, since it irked me to see the article claim that the galaxy is 3.5 times the size of IC 1101 albeit having different estimates.

3.Joseph and SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer are working together in spreading the uncertainties of both UY Scuti and Stephenson 2 DFK 1.

I think I am on the neutral side of things here. It is true that they have large uncertainties in their measurements, but we also need to acknowledge that they still have the potential to be among the largest stars known, especially for St2-DFK 1.--The Space Enthusiast (talk) 04:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Anyway, that is all I have to say and I would appreciate discussion. Thanks.--The Space Enthusiast (talk) 04:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

You recently added a set of stars that are candidates for supermassive dark stars. I know it has been reverted, but do you think these are worth mentioning in other Wikipedia articles?--The Space Enthusiast (talk) 15:17, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Maybe, but let's wait until it's published like Primefac said. VY Canis Majoris (talk) 15:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I've heard news that the paper has been accepted.--The Space Enthusiast (talk) 23:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh, come one. I recently added a large size estimate of IC 1101 that was likely pertaining to the Intracluster light, and people are starting to cite it! Oh no, I might feel the same regret you had when you added Stephenson 2-18 to the list.--The Space Enthusiast (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited RW Cephei, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Sun. 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) 14:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)