Talk:Type Iax supernova

citation minor detail
On the nature article, here is the full citation, which should be tweaked. Curtis McCully, Saurabh W. Jha, Ryan J. Foley, Lars Bildsten, Wen-fai Fong, Robert P. Kirshner, G. H. Marion, Adam G. Riess, Maximilian D. Stritzinger. A luminous, blue progenitor system for the type Iax supernova 2012Z. Nature, 2014; 512 (7512): 54 DOI: 10.1038/nature13615 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 12:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The author field is apparently limited so that all the authors aren't showing. Here it is in full.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 12:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Removed note text
I have removed the note from the page regarding multiple irrelevant sources that have nothing to do with the actual content of the article. The only thing a zombie star shares with an earth-bound zombie is the name (appropriate given that they "come back to life" but that's about as far as the metaphor goes). Also, the mention of Time Magazine "waggishly intoning" things is bordering on WP:WEASEL. If anyone feels like reverting me (again) I would like to know why that user feels it is necessary to include the removed text (so that we do not end up in a pointless edit war). Primefac (talk) 17:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * So we are clear, you were not WP:Reverted, but were undone assume WP:AGF for your edits, and the edit history reflects it was not a "revert". Your careless use of the term is not helpful and I trust this was a mere inadvertence on your part. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 22:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the note is relevant, and disagree with your conclusion. The note says: It is postulated that 30 zombie stars out there have been identified. "That may not be enough to qualify for a zombie-star apocalypse, but it sure sounds like it would make for a great episode of "Star Trek." Time Magazine waggishly intoned: "Less like The Walking Dead and more like The Floating Dead: Astronomers believe they have identified the remnants left from an exploded white dwarf, otherwise known as a “zombie star,” about 110 million light-years from Earth." The Washington Post commented "No word on whether either stars came back with a taste for brains, but it's still pretty cool." [citations omitted].  That these three reliable WP:RS thought it worth the comments suggests it was relevant, contrary to your unsourced WP:opinion to the contrary.  What we are left with then seems to be your self fulfilling prophecy and an Ipse dixit.  Cheers. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 22:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand what your argument is exactly. The issue isn't that the reliable sources you used were bad - they were fine. The issue was the content; various humourous quotes from news articles don't contribute anything of value to the article. What will the reader learn by reading those quotes? Sam Walton (talk) 22:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Primefac and Sam Walton. That note adds no information whatsoever on zombie stars, and the "waggishly" part is a weasel word. We use reliable sources to provide information about a subject, not to reproduce jokes. If the media jokes about the name were significant, we'd need a source commenting on them, not just a couple of examples. Huon (talk) 23:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * , I believe SamWalton better summarised why I believe the references are unnecessary. As for using the word "reverted," the notification I received said I was reverted and thus I used the term. I never intoned that there was bad faith in the undo, and your assumption that I carelessly fling around terms is incorrect. Given that the edit summary for your two edits following mine contained almost no usable information re:revert/undo, I went with what I was told by the system. Primefac (talk) 23:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I know you are in good faith, as am I. I am glad we agree.  There was no "revert" no matter what you or the notice may have said.  Reverts are extreme measures only to be used in the face of patent vandalism.
 * In any event these "jokes" *(as you term them) were in a note, not in the main text—which itself suggested that they were a marginal aside, and certainly not the main point of the article. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 00:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT. Multiple reliable sources made this type of joke, more importantly, had they not been able to make this type of joke they probably wouldn't have covered the story at all. The la times, Wapo, Time,cnet etc are not known for their deep coverage of astronomy topics. It was smart of the scientists to give their discovery a humorous name. While the jokes have no relevance to the actual astronomical topic, they do have relevance to how that topic was percieved and presented to the wider public, and we should not pretend it doesn't exist. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Was there any coverage of the jokes? Did publications say "Hey look, these news sites used the tactic of humour to draw in readers"? If not, it seems entirely arbitrary to write about it, however interesting. Sam Walton (talk) 18:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Quoting secondary sources is pretty much SOP. Do we require tertiary sources for every secondary quote by a reliable source? I don't think so. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. This is about the content of the information being added to the article which, as Huon and Primefac agree, wasn't appropriate. It was just a few humourous quotes. Though I understand your point about it being clever naming and presentation to the public, including a few quotes doesn't even relay that to the reader adequately. A discussion of the finding's public presentation would be interesting, but until a source discusses that in particular it would be synthesis to discuss it in the article. Sam Walton (talk) 18:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

What is it ?
The article doesn't exactly make clear what it is refering to by calling the remant a zombie star. Is it what remains of the white dwarf, or what remains of the companion star once it's been striped of mass & the white dwarf exploded. I can read both ways in the text.

Secondly, if it is the remant of the white dwarf - what is it ? A mini-white dwarf, composed of degenerate matter, or what ? And the fate of the companion star ? The Yeti (talk) 14:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Material from the companion star is stripped by the white dwarf. Eventually enough matter is accreted that fusion once again occurs in the white dwarf, generally causing a supernova. If there is still matter left over and material continues to undergo fusion, then it is a zombie star. In other words, the white dwarf is no longer a white dwarf because it is undergoing fusion. Primefac (talk) 14:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Reverted update
I've updated the article with this reference, and was promptly reverted by , with the reasoning that we almost never use arXiv. Yes, this is true, but this reference falls squarely into the exception: these are recognized experts, that have plenty of publications in reputable journals, reporting on observations they did with the Hubble. Obviously it will get published soon, and I think it's better to update the article now rather than forget about it in a couple of months. Tercer (talk) 10:52, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Obviously it will get published soon - then there is nothing to worry about. There is no deadline, and (as far as astronomy is concerned) this is not exactly breaking news that needs to be in the article as soon as possible. Primefac (talk) 11:29, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm just worried about forgetting about it. And since this is an obscure article, that no-one will find the reference and add it when it becomes published. Tercer (talk) 12:35, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a bot that schedules reminders if you want to have it remind you every month or two to check. Personally I keep my own subpage of things to do. There are a lot of ways to keep tabs on it. Primefac (talk) 17:08, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * You do it then, have fun, I had enough of this nonsense. Tercer (talk) 17:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)