Talk:Superluminous supernova

NOTE
this article doesn't explain that initially it was believe that gamma ray burst "hypernova" were believed to be a spherical ejection of matter. It was a great mystery, how could a star release so much energy in all directions. It was only later when they realised that the burst was confined to a polar burst that the numbers started to add up. This isn't mention in this article, and was a critical moment the development of an understanding of the universe. I'm not the best writer, so I shall let one of you guys add the info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.41.15 (talk) 13:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Fantasy NASA drawing should be removed
Maybe it is just me but my reaction to most NASA fantasy drawings is disgust and it has no place in a science article. Please remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.94.172.13 (talk) 13:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Merge or split first and discuss later
Since no action's occured regarding split I've removed the notice from the article and consolidated all prior discusssions within this section. – Conrad T. Pino (talk) 05:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Collapsar page
All right, if there are no comments on my previous post, then I will go ahead and create a collapsar page and only once that is done, remove the collapsar stuff on the hypernova page here.

Hypercott 18:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: Split up Hypernova and Collapsar
The term collapsar should be described independently from hypernova. I would like to take part of the collapsar discussion and move it onto a separate Collapsar page. At the same time, I volunteer to fix the science issues of this article... (I am a supernova/GRB theorists and feel capable of doing it)

Comments? Hypercott 20:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The terms should definitely be split. Orcoteuthis (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merge of collapsar and hypernova
These articles were tagged for merging by User:Cwolfsheep. Discussion to determine consensus opinion about the merge (if consensus exists) goes here. --Christopher Thomas 06:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Support merge, with collapsar redirecting to hypernova. Second choice, make collapsar a disambiguation page (many decades ago, it referred to black holes).--Christopher Thomas 06:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Do not support merging of collapsar with hypernova. A collapsar is a specific physical model for the central engine of long duration gamma-ray bursts. Hypernova, means different things to different astrophysicists including pair-instability supernovae of very massive metal-poor stars. Hypernova is also used to describe any stellar explosion thought to be more energetic than canonical supernovae.  It is true that collapsar was used as a generic term for black holes a long time ago, but it is now commonly understand in the astrophysics community to be a model for long GRBs involving the rapid accretion of gas into a newly-formed spinning black hole formed during core collapse of a rapidly rotating Wolf_Rayet star. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Black hole (talk • contribs) on 18 July 2006.
 * Oppose per Black hole. 132.205.44.134 02:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose because neither of the definitions have reached stability of usage even in the professional community. Hypernova was used in the late 90's to refer to the putative 10<sup53 erg explosions required to power unbeamed gamma-ray bursts.  Now that it is widely agreed that they are heavily beamed, the term is being used for SNe only slightly more energetic than average.  Collapsar is undergoing similar evolution -- it currently seems to be applied to GRB progenitors, but who knows if that is where the term will settle. Mordecai-Mark Mac Low 15:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose a full merge per reasoning above, as e.g. user Black hole. However, the paragraph about the collapsar model (currently the third paragraph) should maybe be lifted out from here and merged, as it's specifically talking only about the collapsar theory, and that would then more properly be covered in its own article. -- Northgrove 23:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Hypernova spelling
"Hypernova (pl. hypernovae)" The term nova is the plural of the latin term novum and is in its current singular meaning in no way latin. Why then not novas?--80.146.2.242 22:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Nova is here not the neuter plural but the feminine singular - it's originally short for stella nova "new star" - and novae is very much the correct Latin plural. In fact, hypernova, pl hypernovae would be a good neo-Latin word. Orcoteuthis (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed section
I removed a section that was uncited and directly contradicted cited parts of the gamma ray bursts page. Plus I'm pretty sure what was written is just untrue.67.82.47.139 23:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Rate of occurrence
Regarding: "It is estimated that a hypernova occurs every 200 million years. That would mean the Earth is past due by 250 million years."

Does this imply (incorrectly) that hypernovae are fairly regular events? The probability of a hypernova occurring today is no more or no less than it was 200 million years ago. Yet someone reading this sentence could be mislead by the Gambler%27s_fallacy into assuming that a hypernova was imminent.


 * My guess is that a hypernova occurs more often in the galaxy than only once in every 200 million years, since the galaxy contains trillions of stars.
 * I think the the statement in the article relates only to the Milky Way, or even only the solar system.
 * So a hypernova has not occured in this region for about 250 million years. Patrick1982 08:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Your point stands, but the Milky Way Galaxy "only" contains about 100 to 400 billion stars. Billbrock 04:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC) edited Billbrock 07:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I removed the offending sentence. I felt it was very misleading. (Dean P Foster)


 * Some web pages have suggested Eta Carinae as a candidate in our galaxy to turn into a hypernova within the next million years.

And web pages, naturally, are the ultimate source of information on astrophysics. -- CYD

I removed the web pages linked to that provided the debated information. If the text there is considered too misleading to be included in the wikipedia, it's hardly a good source. Suspecting that the "some web pages" part in the "OMG ETA CARINAE IS GOING TO KILL US ALL" line refers to the very same page, I removed that sentence as well. Enough is mentioned about this star in the end of the article I think, without the doomsday prophecies. -- Robert

Safe for Foreseeable Future
The following still makes me uncomfortable.
 * If hypernovae only occur in massive stellar objects at least 40 times the mass of our sun, then the Earth is safe from such an event for the foreseeable future. The closest hypernova candidate, Eta Carinae, is currently over 7,500 light years away.

Perhaps there are sensors faster than light that I know not of, but I would guess that all we know is that 7,500 years ago the star was 7,500 light years away. Currently it may be a black hole and a bunch of gamma rays. If it went hypernova 7480 years ago, then I don't think we'd know it yet, but it could affect us in the foreseeable future. Am I missing something? (Of course it could just as easily be hundreds of millions of years from any such fate.) Dpv 00:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're missing something: the energy will spread out as r-2, so the danger drops as the square of the distance. 7500 light years is a substantial distance, even for a GRB. Mordecai-Mark Mac Low 19:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

You are also forgetting that stars move in the galaxy, so we could end up right next to a potential supernova! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.235.132.32 (talk) 09:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but remember that if we get that close to a star, there will be adverse effects before that happens due to the gravitational pull and the heat from that star. Viet&#124;Pham (talk) 01:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Eeweeweew! The only sensible notion here is that Eta Carinae might actually already have exploded (or not), but it won't be very far from the place were we can observe it now, because stars in general don't move in anything near the speed of the light. We will not be taken by surprise by a GRB occurring near us unexpectedly. Any candidate will be clearly visible to us today. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 17:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Unless of course, it is a double neutron star collapsing. But that has nothing to do with hypernovae. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 17:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Removal of extinction section
I've removed the following content entirely, as it is already included in the article on gamma ray bursts, which is a more appropriate location.


 * Hypothetical scenarios involving Earth


 * It has been theorized that the energy released by a hypernova relatively nearby might be capable of causing mass extinctions on Earth. Scientists at NASA and the University of Kansas in 2005 released a study suggesting that a mass extinction on Earth 450 million years ago, known as the Ordovician extinction, could have been triggered by a gamma-ray burst. Hitting the Earth for only ten seconds, a gamma ray outburst caused by a hypernova could deplete up to half of the atmosphere's protective ozone layer. With the ozone layer damaged, ultraviolet radiation from the Sun could kill much of the life on land and near the surface of oceans and lakes, and disrupt Earth's ecology.


 * If hypernovae only occur in massive stellar objects at least 40 times the mass of our sun, then the Earth is safe from such an event for the foreseeable future. The closest hypernova candidate, Eta Carinae, is currently over 7,500 light years away.

Mordecai-Mark Mac Low 17:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Nicely done! That GRB modelling belongs to nowhere else than in gamma ray bursts. The theory is malplaced in all other contexts as fringe science, but might be valid as a model for possible GRB consequences. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 18:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Coinage
The book "Death by Black Hole" by Neil DeGrasse Tyson, states that the coinage of the term "Hypernova" belongs to the Princeton astrophysicist, Bohdan Paczynski (p.280), yet this article states otherwise; should it be changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.165.186.66 (talk) 01:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Collapsars in popular culture
I re-removed the IPC section after DGG put it back in. The reason is that the collapsars in popular culture all refer to black hole variants, and have nothing to do with the actual physical object / process theorized now. The fictional usage all appeared prior to the 1993 Woolsey / McFadden application of the name to the accretion disk / jet mechanism black hole gamma burst phenomenon.

If *these* collapsars appeared in popular fiction then the IPC section would make sense, but other unrelated fictional things separately labeled collapsars don't (in my opinion) belong in this article.

Discussion welcome, however ... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The difficulty is that this article used to be called collapsar. The name-change orphaned the list of popular culture references. They should probably be moved to black hole's popular culture section (or another suitable place). Maybe also add a "collapsar redirects here; for the term as applied to black holes in general, see black hole" boilerplate to this article to clarify the situation. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 04:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hypernova image
The article isn't clear on whether or not the hypernova image (HyperNova1 LG.jpg) is an actual photograph or an artist's rendition. From looking at the NASA page I believe it originally comes from, and the accompanying movie, I get a strong impression that it's an artist's rendition. Yet here, the image author is listed as "Some telescope". Does anyone know for sure? 81.233.98.9 (talk) 21:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Definition
The first sentence contains the statement that "a type of supernova explosion with an energy of over 100 supernovae (over 1048 joules)". This would appear to be something of an exaggeration. The most luminous known supernovae are approximately 15 brighter than a standard type Ia and around 50 times brighter than a typical type II, while most "hypernovae" are around a tenth of that at peak. Relative energy output is higher due to the extended duration of hypernovae, but still usually short of 100 times. We should be very careful when referring to "energy output", since different sources refer to different types of energy, for example, explosion energy, neutrino energy, kinetic energy, or radiated energy. The 10^48 joules referred to here is higher than the energy outputs that are usually quoted for even the brightest hypernovae (eg. 2006gy), although if the (non-observed) neutrino output is included then perhaps it is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lithopsian (talk • contribs) 11:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

twerktwerktwerk vandalism
Right at the top of the page, there's the text "TWERKTWERKTWERKTWERKTWERKT... ==Gamma-ray bursts==TWERKTWERKTWERKTWERKTWERK...." however on the edit page I can't see it and therefore can't clean up the page. I can't be the only one seeing this, right? 81.108.18.192 (talk) 19:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅. It was a previous revision stuck in the server cache. Purging the page fixed it. &mdash;&thinsp; H HHIPPO  21:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Are hypernovae the most energetic events in the universe
A leading question of course, but such a statement has been added to the lead and needs explaining. The reference given (a wayback machine archive of http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/universe/) is another example of a NASA article that misunderstands, exaggerates, or misrepresents accurate information to create a misleading impression. In this particular case, the misleading impression was further chinese-whispered into "most powerful events so far discovered in the cosmos" which is just plain wrong.

Here is roughly how the whispers went: 1. Gamma ray bursts (GRBs) can briefly outshine the rest of the sources in the sky at gamma ray wavelengths. This is a true statement, albeit in the slightly misleading way that a laser can "outshine" the sun when it hits you in the eye, but is not actually more energetic than the sun. 2. Some hypernovae are (or are coincident with, or produce) GRBs. True, although most likely not all do. 3. The logical jump is then made to say that hypernovae outshine the rest of the objects in the sky. This is wrong, since a hypernova and a GRB are not the same thing, and we are no longer talking about only gamma ray wavelengths. If it was true then hypernovae would outshine all other objects at least at some objects whereas they are faint except (occasionally) in gamma rays. 4. Hence a hypernova is not the most powerful event in the cosmos, briefly or otherwise. It may produce a directional gamma ray source which if it hits the earth is briefly brighter than all other gamma ray sources in the sky (as seen from our vantage point). Or not, if it doesn't produce a GRB at all, or if it doesn't beam in our direction. A hypernova is typically a few hundred or a few thousand times as "powerful" (both more luminous and longer lasting) than a standard supernova, hence hundreds of times as bright as one galaxy. Since there are more than hundreds of galaxies in the universe, you do the math ... Lithopsian (talk) 13:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've looked at the web page, and, to be frank, there seems to be no misunderstanding, exaggeration, or misrepresentation of accurate information. In fact, there is no mentioning of hypernovae being the most powerful events in the universe on the NASA webpage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonathan100 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Distinguishing between Hypernovae and Superluminous Supernovae?
This article seems to address Hypernovae (HNe) and Superluminous Supernovae (SLSNe) as the same class of supernova, but I'm not sure that's the case. Chr1s 1 tried to make a change to distinguish the two, but I think addressing this in the article is going to be more involved than altering the lead due to the whole article referring to them interchangeably. The difficulty is that sources appear to sometimes make a distinction and other times refer to them as the same thing. Searching for papers on the Astrophysics Data System on HNe and SLSNe brought me to these three papers, each of which makes some distinction between the two:
 * - "in better agreement with the yields of hyper-energetic explosions (Hypernovae, (HNe)) rather than normal supernovae. We note the large variation of the abundance patterns of EMP stars propose that such a variation is related to the diversity of the GRB-SNe and posssibly superluminous supernovae (SLSNe)"
 * - "two of them are accompanied by superluminous-supernova-like (SLSN-like) bumps, which are 10 times brighter than typical hypernovae."
 * - "demonstrates that SLSNe and hypernovae have similar conditions in their cores"

Equally, there are papers like this one that write "the most suitable means to produce superluminous SNe. These are generally nicknamed ‘hypernovae’." so I'm not sure which way to go on this. Pinging recent editors. Sam Walton (talk) 13:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I was just looking to make some changes to clarify usage of the term Hypernova, and I got notified of this discussion. In short, usage is inconsistent! This in part was why I renamed the article to something better-defined, but it does still leave the definition for hypernova dangling. The term Hypernova pre-dates the relatively recent superluminous supernova, and has been used for various events, often events whose origins are not understood so it hardly pays to be pedantic about what it means. Scientific usage appears to have coalesced around hypernovae being a (model for) core collapse to a black hole of a very massive star with an associated disk and long duration gamma ray burst. It in this respect "hypernova model" would be essentially synonymous with "collapsar model". I can give references that explicitly state this definition, but also others that use the term hypernova in a broader sense. Popularly, meaning outside of scientific journals, hypernova is used almost anywhere the author feels the need to grab attention, to reference any energetic supernova with or without GRB. It almost defies definition. Perhaps I'll let someone else try to clarify this in the article, since I already renamed it and made major edits. Usage of the word "hypernova" in the article should already be restricted to historical descriptions and my loose definition in the lead. I feel that a slightly more detailed (and cited) description of its meanings, possible varied meanings, in the body would suffice, but maybe not ... Lithopsian (talk) 14:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for query.


 * 1) The problem here is the definition of Hypernovae and Superluminous Supernovae (SLSNe), whose terms are liberally used to describe a new type of supernova. They come from new explanations of the causes of the star detonation which have become theoretically possible in the last decade or so. Much of the work on them remains theoretical, and the number of events displaying more energy than a 'regular' supernovae remain only a few without formal understanding of the progenitor's situation. Needless-to-say, a hypernovae is tentatively better described as pair-pair core collapse supernova - though as you point out, the literature varies in interpretation.


 * I reverted Cri1s 1's edit because the difference is not clear-cut, but I partly compromised and retained the reference until this issue is sorted out. The reasoning that "I have a PhD in astrophysics, and just did a literature search. superluminous supernovae are not know as hypernovae" in retaining this doesn't hold water - especially by a newbee. (A PhD would already know this without any 'literature search.') After this link and others already shows this is not true, anyway. My view is that my recent edits do hold water.


 * 2) Another concerning problem here can be placed directly at the foolish Lithopsian feet. This user has just removed the Hypernova article and merged it here, notably without consultation or even trying to gain consensus. (Notably pretending like they somehow 'own' the article.) Acting like a vigilante jackass (as usual) this self-professed 'expert' clearly doesn't know what they are talking about. Worst, they avoid any scrutiny and scream utter indignation when they are challenged.


 * Somehow, since my post (and troubles) on the Wolf-Rayet star WR31a Lithopsian has changed his entire viewpoint. I.e. From 'absolutes' for terms of these new types of supernova to the reality that "There is still no recognised principle theory for the cause of these events, which is open to some debate." (being theoretical astronomy not fact.) As for hypernovae or superluminous supernovae, the truth is "The jury on the outcome of these stars still remains uncertain."


 * Again Lithopsian should heed : Wikipedia is supposedly based on consensus, and making edits what the Talk page is for! If you are unprepared to do cooperative editing with other editors, you should probably do something else.


 * Really if editors do want to merge articles theyshould discuss it first, else we end up in a complete tangled mess, which other Users have to sort out. From the absolute BS as an excuse written by Lithopsian above just doesn't cut the mustard. I.e. Saying "I was just looking to make some changes to clarify usage of the term Hypernova, and I got notified of this discussion. In short, usage is inconsistent! This in part was why I renamed the article to something better-defined, but it does still leave the definition for hypernova dangling." highlights this utter incompetence. As for the rest, it is spin just to justify their own stupidity! I.e. Absolving their responsibilities by saying "Perhaps I'll let someone else try to clarify this in the article, since I already renamed it and made major edits." is frankly disgraceful and irresponsible.


 * Either Lithopsian attempts to fix the mess they created here, or it will probably be best to just revert all the edits back to when the the articles were separate items, and just start this again. Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * One thing I would say is that if you search the literature properly you would see that one type of superluminous SN (not hypernovae) are likely to be pair-pair production. If you correctly read the literature, over 90% of it refers to hypernovae as very energetic Ic supernova (for example see http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...664..416B http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006NuPhA.777..424N or http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...572L..61M) all of these papers have over 200 citations! (whihc is very high in this area of astrophyiscs) When making a decision on what is the correct term you should also take into account the credibility of the source, there is no highly cited paper referring to super luminous SN as hypernovae. And referring to a sciencemag article, about a paper that i am an author on!!, as one of the main sources which cites SLSN as hypernovae is not credible.
 * I understand that this was my first edit so you are unsure about my editing, but i am currently writing a paper on GRBs and hypsernovae and saw this problem on wikipedia and felt it was so wrong it needed changing.
 * Also i would like to see a reliable citation which connects SLSN and GRBS.... im not aware of any solid results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chr1s 1 (talk • contribs) 12:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Also i would like to see a reliable citation which connects SLSN and GRBS.... im not aware of any solid results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chr1s 1 (talk • contribs) 12:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * hypernovae and superluminous SN need to be separate articles, and in the hypernovae article there could be a small section about how some people also call SLSN, hypernovae (but it is not the standard terminology) Chr1s 1 —Preceding undated comment added 09:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Chr1s 1. Firstly thanks for your input on this topic and willingness to fix the issues here. Your expertise will certainly add much to the Project. My apologies for the rough introduction to editing here, but your initial edit seemed questionable especially by an unregistered user. Contentious issues are usually discussed on Talkpages where edits can be discussed and consensus achieved. One other point, please add the four consecutive tildes '~' at the end of your post as this names and time stamps your contributions.
 * Now regarding your points on hypernovae. The paper you present, though well cited, are fairly old, and as far as I can see the 'science' so far has presented differing scenarios since then to explain the phenomena. Still, your points stated above are valid. However, the confusion seems endemic, probably caused but several concurrent theories that apply to either hypernova of the superluminous supernova. Really, by definition, hypernova and superluminous supernova are both smaller subsets of all supernovae. I do agree these article should be separated back to their original forms, where the merits can be assessed. This can be done, but the logistics is a little complex. (we may needed some third-hand advice here.) In the meantime, I have so further reading to do to evaluate this little better. I do thank you sincerely for your input so far. Arianewiki1 (talk) 12:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Contradictions
Apart from the hypernova SLSNe problem...


 * 1) Under section 'Classification', the text says: "SLSNe... showed that not only were they more luminous by an order of magnitude than most supernovae, but they were not powered by the radioactive decay that was responsible for the observed electromagnetic radiation of conventional supernovae."


 * Then it later says: "A third less common group of SLSNe is also hydrogen-poor and abnormally luminous, but clearly powered by radioactivity from a large mass of 56Ni."


 * If true, then it must be a ordinary supernova? which is it?


 * 2) There is absolutely no mention of how luminosity is derived or its dependence on knowing a galaxy's distance - centrally important determining the classifications between supernovae or their brighter SLSN cousins.


 * Worst, supernovae etc. are classed by their brightness characteristics, their light-curves, then their spectra. There luminosities is then based on knowing the distances, which then further determine the event type. This whole section implies Ic classes are ordinary supernova but its spectra determines if it is "compariable to conventional type Ic.", yet the examples either rapidly rise and decline OR have slow rise and decline.


 * Fix this or the whole section should be removed.


 * 3) Collapsars are an antiquated name for black holes, so why use it? The text throughout rambles on, with several odd unrelated comparisons with ordinary supernovae


 * 4) Little discussion of stellar evolution of massive stars and none relates this to supernova, making this look like personal research. Supernovae do not necessarily form black holes nor do all SLSNe/hypernovae. Also statement "Stars with 5–15 M☉ cores have an approximate total mass of 25–90 M☉, assuming the star has not undergone significant mass loss" and "Such a star will still have a hydrogen envelope and will explode as a Type II supernova." Who says this? What is the source of this statement? Where did the hydrogen envelope come from? Statements after this says the opposite, inferring what?

Clearly, anyone generally reading this is ultimately utterly confused. (As am I...) Arianewiki1 (talk) 10:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I urge you to consider your tone and language. No editor is anyone's bitch. Wikipedia is a collaborative project for and by contributing people who (mostly) work for free and demands basic human respect. You risk clouding your own message by insulting people. RhinoMind (talk) 03:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Eh? This issue here is actually about collaboration, which one editors seem quite happy to totally ignore. This is now the second time now where one editor totally botches an edit this time, by merging two article without bother to get consensus nor even discussing it, stuffs the information up, then happily walks away from the disaster by saying "Perhaps I'll let someone else try to clarify this in the article, since I already renamed it and made major edits." Then the rest of us try to patch up their mess they leave behind.
 * Furthermore, none of the text in this section here is has an issues with tone, language nor is at all "insulting." (It looks like petty game of accuse the accuser, actually) Editing is a two-way street, and when editors ignore the procedures of engaging with talkpages to solve problems THAT too is also insulting. (I'm an editor here, not someone having to wet-nurse them just when to going gets a little difficult. It is clear not even bothering to solve these pointed out contradictions above, that you either don't know or don't care - but neither solves the real problem in the article's text. Competence or incompetence displayed by others isn't real my problem, but wasting my time on trivialities (or stroking egos) sure is.)
 * All I see is some editors openly bragging they are great astrophysical 'experts' and claiming they know much better than anyone else, then make quite very obvious errors, to immediately start either deflections from the issues with irrelevancies or just run-for-the-hills when their wrong notions or facts are challenged. WP:GF is one thing, but being unable to admit mistakes, compromise, or unable understand/explain issues with topic at hand is another.
 * So in the end, the solution might be even simpler. Instead of bothering with any serious discussion on desire to gain true consensus, I'll just delete these contradictions altogether. Is that the better way?
 * I'd suggest that if you have any further problems, then deal with it using the official mechanisms available. Arianewiki1 (talk) 06:22, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Very well. I'll admit that I was not relating to any content and message in your comment here, but exclusively to your tone and attitude. You have posted quite a few comments across several pages within a very short time recently and most of what you write is little more than whining complaints about this and that. There doesn't seem to be much concrete stuff to discuss in them, but a lot of negativity. And when you try to raise the quality of articles, your edits are not always for the better. Sometimes they expose that you haven't done your homework on the issues you engages in. ("homework" includes reading refs and sources in articles). I have posted some replies on the Talk:WR 104 page in particular. Perhaps I should have raised concern there in the first place, or maybe on your personal TalkPage, I can't tell, but at least now the concern have been raised and you have been informed properly. Just have all this in mind for the future please and the discussions could hopefully proceed a lot more constructive and fruitfull. With me or with other editors. I welcome all editors to engage in discussing the actual subjects you raise above, I am only concerned about the tone and attitude, that's all. RhinoMind (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 28 May 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 17:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Superluminous supernova → Hypernova – Per WP:CommonName. "Superluminous supernova" gets 13,800 Google search results while "Hypernova" gets 922,000. Hypernova is clearly the common name of this phenomenon. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose: moving solves nothing. The article probably needs to be split, or at the very least some solid citations to support definitions of the two terms if both are to stay in a single article.  Superluminous supernova is the correct designation of a certain class of objects.  Hypernova is the correct, or at least very common, designation of a different class of objects with some overlap (possibly a great deal of overlap, possibly not very much).  Depending on the definition, a majority of those 922,000 Google hits may not even be about hypernovae.  The problems have been much discussed here, solutions not so much.  Fix up the article, with or without a split, and the title(s) should become obvious.  Lithopsian (talk) 20:25, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Agreed. Moving it solves nothing. Superluminous supernova is the correct designation of a certain class of objects and are described in many formal pages. ADS says Total number selected: 1548 for Superluminous supernova, 234 for Hypernova. Besides Hypernova is also a company, band, etc., so a Google search is not exactly good comparison. Arianewiki1 (talk) 01:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Split to hypernova
The article currently contains a mixture of descriptions of superluminous supernovae and hypernovae. Both are unusually energetic supernovae, but in other respects the terms are used for different objects. I'm starting to split the articles on the basis of the following definitions: a hypernova being a supernovae having ejecta with an unusually high kinetic energy, both a large mass and a very high velocity; superluminous supernova being a supernovae with unusually high electromagnetic radiation, ie. very bright. I'll leave this article alone for now, and try to produce a consistent hypernova article. In the interim there is going to be a lot of duplicate material. I'll leave the duplication in place, it will make it easier to revert in case this approach is disputed, but if it seems good then someone else could start to cull it from here. Lithopsian (talk) 13:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This could take a while. See Draft:hypernova.  Lithopsian (talk) 13:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Now at hypernova. Have at it.  Probably a lot more that could be said there.  This article now needs to be tidied up with hypernova-specific material pruned.  Lithopsian (talk) 19:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

"Pair-instability hypernova" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Pair-instability hypernova. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 13 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 23:15, 13 November 2021 (UTC)