Talk:Stephenson 2 DFK 49

Improvements
Hello!

I am currently busy with some things at the moment, so improve the article in whatever way. Thanks! - The Space Enthusiast (talk) 10:29, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Stephenson 2-11?
Who calls it Stephenson 2-11? I can't find that designation in any of the given references, or in any other searches. Simbad doesn't show it, although it does show [DNZ2010] St2-11referring to the St2-11 designation used in one paper. There seems to be very little support for using this as the article title, and not a lot of support for including it at all. I've tagged the designation as needing a reference, but am holding off just moving it back to the old title in case strong evidence turns up in the next few days. Lithopsian (talk) 12:11, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Deguchi et al refers to this star as Stephenson 2-11. I also changed it for consistency with Stephenson 2-18.—The Space Enthusiast (talk) 14:12, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Page number? I don't see it anywhere.  Lithopsian (talk) 14:28, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * St2-18 may have the same problem. We can come back to that if this one proves to be unfounded.  Lithopsian (talk) 14:29, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The page number where Stephenson 2-11 is referred to in DNZ2010 are pages 4 and 7, at least in my version.--The Space Enthusiast (talk) 04:21, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Is that in the arXiv preprint? The actual journal article starts at page 391.  In the preprint, on page 4 and on page 7 I see "St2-11", but I don't see "Stephenson 2-11".  Is that what you're seeing?  I see "St2-11" again in tables 1, 2, 3, and 4, but I don't see "Stephenson 2-11" anywhere and I don't find it in any other paper.  I looked in the published paper (online version at ) and it is the same.  Lithopsian (talk) 16:01, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, yes, it only says St2-11. I am starting to think that both articles (This and Stephenson 2-18) should have their names changed to the DFK designations, but I fear that this will cause a massive media circus, for the designation "Stephenson 2-18" has already garnered so much attention that it will be confusing for the media to call it by both designations. Media reactions to changes on Wikipedia articles always make me fearful; This is why I dreaded User:SkyFlubbler's edits to the galaxy sizes. I liked what he is trying to bring and that galaxy sizes have numerous ways to measure them, but what I dreaded was that the media would go abuzz over the new sizes, like: "The Milky Way is smaller than 100,000 light years?!" or "IC 1101 is no longer the largest galaxy?!" or something like that. I think that should be kept in mind.--The Space Enthusiast (talk) 03:00, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @The Space Enthusiast
 * Since I was mentioned, I would like to emphasize this: Unless made in proper contexts, Wikipedia does not care about popularity or what is mainstream. Wikipedia is about reliable sources, and if they are verifiable.
 * Regarding the galaxy sizes, if someone would dare question about the Milky Way's new smaller size then I can just point them to Goodwin 1998, or to the 2MASS final release data and RC3 for IC 1101, or to the RC3 for Andromeda and the Magellanic Clouds, along with a further discussion of galaxy isophotes. Because that is what we should do. No matter how much the media reports that the Milky Way or IC 1101 is a bajillion or some weird number of light-years across, what we have are established and verifiable figures that use methods that are in convention for the past half a century of astronomy or so.
 * So back to Stephenson 2-11, if you think the DFK designations are much more reliable than others, then change it as such. You can then move Stephenson 2-18 to Stephenson 2 DFK 1, regardless of how popular the former one has been used (take WHL0137-LS as an example, despite the mainstream media calling it 'Earendel'). SkyFlubbler (talk) 09:31, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok. What designation does everyone like more: DFK or the other one?--The Space Enthusiast (talk) 09:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * They don't have to be the same. In fact, if the commonly-used designations for each star have different formats, then the titles should also have different formats.  I've only looked at this star in detail, and neither of the options is very appealing.  Publications are fairly sparse.  The DFK form seems to be preferred by Simbad, but it is a fairly long mixed alphanumeric.  St2-11 is rather cryptic, but possibly the most popular format.  How about RSGC2-11?  Ste2-49?  Just D49 lacks context.  Lithopsian (talk) 16:49, 8 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I have requested that the page be moved back to its original title, without the dash. We can still pick a different one at some point, but Stephenson 2-DFK 49 (with a dash) and Stephenson 2-11 don't seem to be contenders.  Lithopsian (talk) 16:05, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Mass
I found the 25 solar mass value for the initial mass of the star in Humphreys (2020). It is located on page 28. "RSGC2 and NGC 7419 are the exceptions to a common age for the apparent member red supergiants. RSGC2 has a large range of luminosities overlapping with both RSGC3 and RSGC1, and implying an initial mass range from 12 M⊙ to more than 25 M⊙ for the post-RSG star 49. As already noted in our previous discussion, the candidate members are spread over more than 6 ′." --The Space Enthusiast (talk) 17:34, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Fixed now.  Lithopsian (talk) 17:43, 27 December 2022 (UTC)