Talk:Sn 1680


 * Yes, this should definitely be moved into Cassiopeia A (longer and better titled article). I'll do the merging when I get a chance if no one else beats me to it... --  Etacar11   17:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, definitely merge this. In any case, it isn't clear that what Flamsteed saw (assuming it wasn't an error of some sort) in 1680 was in fact the progenitor of Cassiopeia A. Whoever authored this stub is assuming a lot. user:Jsc1973