Talk:Multi-messenger astronomy

Inclusion of solar flares is not consistent with claim of "extra-solar" messengers
I do not think that there is agreement in the astrophysics-community whether to count the sun to multi-messenger objects or not, but if you do, you need to be consistent. You talk in the introduction about "extra-solar" messengers. First question: Why extra-solar? Where does this constraint stem from? My definition of multi-messenger is: observed in the electromagnetic spectrum (no matter which waveband) plus one or more other channels (neutrinos, GW, cosmic rays). If we count the sun in, then solar flares are ok (EM + CR), but definitely solar neutrinos need to be mentioned (I think we all agree that the sun is visible in the electromagnetic spectrum :-)! I suggest to change the intro of the article, leave the constraint "extra-solar" out, and mention the constraint to EM observations. If there is no objection I can give it a try. --JPRachen (talk) 14:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

GW170817 is overly detailed/Multi-wavelength is not multi-messenger
The story of how GW170817 was played out seems to be out of place here. "Milestones" should be a bullet list of items worth referring to, not play-by-play description that is found in linked to articles. 129.68.81.81 (talk) 14:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Multi-wavelength is not multi-messenger
Solar flares that were observed in different parts of the electromagnetic spectrum are off-topic here. Our personal opinions as to what counts as "multi-messenger" are not allowed, only items with reliable sources. 129.68.81.81 (talk) 14:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

July 2018 entry is the announcement of the September 2017 milestone
need to combine the two milestone entries. what is the protocol? my suggestion is to list the milestones by the date of the event, not the date of the announcement. to develop more about the event, should start a page on EHE170922. Catomi31 (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Table?
I wonder if it makes sense to add a table for observed events (with better layout). What do you think? --mfb (talk) 21:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea, and plan to implement it shortly. Brianwelsch (talk) 20:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

The table is good, but it needs black-hole mergers. I guess I'll add it shortly. Simsong (talk) 01:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree the table is good, but it would be nice if what is presently set as a dash could be clarified. Is a dash in the table "no" or "unknown to the scientific community" or "no information available from sources"? zachaysan ( parley ) 14:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The current use is "not expected to happen in any relevant amount". Technically a solar flare will emit gravitational waves. Waving a hand emits gravitational waves, too. It's just completely negligible. --mfb (talk) 01:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

What are "irregular neutron stars"?
I have searched and have been unable to find any other occurrences of this phrase. A citation, wikilink, elaboration or rephrasing would be very helpful. Is this referring to surface irregularities, unusual characteristics or local astrophysical environment? EubieDrew (talk) 18:50, 21 May 2023 (UTC)