Talk:SN 2003fg

Oasis song
Was this named after that 1995 Oasis song? -Rolypolyman 18:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Consistency
Why is the article called Champagne Supernova but the article refers to the event by the other name?  Jamie | C 14:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Intro and organistion
This article needs cleaning up, particuarly it needs a non-technical intro and it needs reorganising to be logical. As an example it currently mentions that the mass of it progenitor (whatever that is) is unusual, and gives a figure for what is normal but doesn't give you any detail on this event's figures until much later.

I get the impression most of the information is in the article, somwhere, but it just needs structure and logical organisation. Thryduulf 01:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Naming Convention
The title's needlessly confusing and misleading. Astronomer's do not refer to this supernova as the "champagne supernova" -- that is a nickname, used in the title of a news-and-views article. The article should be titled SNLS-03d3bb or SN 2003fg (which conforms to the IAU designation convention used for other articles on particular supernovae).
 * I agree, the section of Nature this title comes from is a summary for non-Astronomers. The name used in academic papers is either SN2003fg or SNLS-03d3bb, of which the former is probably a better choice for this article name as it conforms to the naming convention set by other supernovae (SN 1987A for example). Further, this will avoid a confusion with the song. --Falcorian (talk) 00:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Because no one has opposed the move over a few months, nor again when I sent people some messages, I've moved it. --Falcorian (talk) 01:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

POV Flag
The neutrality of the article is dubious at best. Sentences like "It may potentially revolutionize thinking about the physics of supernovae" sound very point-of-view and they should be reworked into more neutral wording. I, however, have no idea how to rephrase them. CielProfond (talk) 23:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Why not use something along the lines of "The supernova defies the Chandrasekhar Limit, provoking speculation as to the authenticity of the supernovae theory." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astroch3mist (talk • contribs) 02:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Astroch3mist's sentence is also more informative to people such as myself, who are not entirely versed in the subject.96.53.24.86 (talk) 01:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Researchers from Toronto?
Who were the "researchers from the University of Toronto"? Can the original documents announcing this discovery please be added to the references?
 * Added a ref. See Howell et al. --Falcorian (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on SN 2003fg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061025161153/http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/680 to http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/680

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC)