User talk:Nussun05

Welcome!
Hello, Nussun05, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:


 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 01:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi Nussun05! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

-- 18:47, Monday, March 23, 2020 (UTC)

IRAS 05280-6910
The value  for IRAS 05280-6910 is in the Marshall citation per Table 4 (pg 12)! And do you think it should be used since, the stars should be sorted by the smallest estimates (useless if the larger estimates is calculated from more accurate measurements) per talk? 2A01:E0A:47A:F100:3DF3:EDFC:6831:BA1D (talk) 00:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

That estimate is really old and probably obsolete like the 650 solar radii estimate for Mu Cephei or the 825 solar radii estimate for UY Scuti Nussun05 (talk) 06:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

RMC 87F
Where did you calculate or find the value for RMC 87F on the List of largest stars? And how is it inaccurate? - Faren29 7:46 pm (UTC)

It came from the same source as HV 888 and it is inaccurate because the star is a red giant and not a supergiant Nussun05 (talk) 18:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

How was this radius calculated? - Faren29 18:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faren29 (talk • contribs)

Luminosity and Temperature Nussun05 (talk) 18:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

What were the values given for the luminosity and temperature? - Faren29 19:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I don’t remember but you can see for yourself (In the stars ref it uses the HD designation so you will need to find the corresponding one) Nussun05 (talk) 19:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I can't find a stars ref in the source, unless I'm looking at something wrong. - Faren29 19:11 27 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faren29 (talk • contribs)

The HD name is HD 269924 Nussun05 (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I understand, however I can't find the stars ref that contains the star. Faren29 19:15 27 May 2020 (UTC)

The star is in the 2018 ref by Sloan Nussun05 (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I was already in the ref, but I can't seem find the table that contains the stars parameters. Faren29 19:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

It is there, you will find it, it has luminosity and temperature there Nussun05 (talk) 19:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Found it. However, there's also strange identifiersin the same table. Idetifier msxlmc1677 suggests a ridiculously high luminosity of and a very low effective temperature of 2,700 K. Those parameters would suggest a radius of nearly. Faren29 19:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Averaging sizes
Hi Nussun05, I don't think it is very accurate to average star sizes, especially ones like NML and KY Cygni. Their range is huge. If you are averaging, i suggest you use the lower estimates, just trying to help!PNSMurthy (talk) 07:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I think it's good to average the sizes if the range is really big. Nussun05 (talk) 08:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, okay, by the way, have you found any stars bigger than WOH G64, just curiousPNSMurthy (talk) 09:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Well yes since there is stars above WOH G64 on the list of largest stars Nussun05 (talk) 09:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay then, I am finding more now too!PNSMurthy (talk) 09:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

What stars are you finding? If you tell me what they are, their sizes and the source of the size i can add them to the list. Nussun05 (talk) 09:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Do you know a star called WOH G55, and WOH G5, I found them, but I am still finding sources for them. I saw them in QuoraPNSMurthy (talk) 09:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Quora is not a reliable source and i don't think there is any actual sources with radii for them. Keep looking for other stars that do have a real source, and when you do come back to me. Nussun05 (talk) 09:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

One place you can find sources is vizier, but it might be too advanced for you. Nussun05 (talk) 10:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Also want to be friends and maybe create a discord account so you can add me (V838 Monocerotis#7307) on there? Nussun05 (talk) 10:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I gtg, and I do use vizier, bye, and I will keep searching!PNSMurthy (talk) 10:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

bye Nussun05 (talk) 10:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

btw what about the thing with discord? will you add me :) ? Nussun05 (talk) 11:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Don't use dicord, sos,PNSMurthy (talk) 23:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

What star is WOH G17, I have a feeling that's not the right sizePNSMurthy (talk) 08:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

WOH G17 is located in the LMC, i'm not sure if the size is accurate. Nussun05 (talk) 08:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure, but I've added a note to the list of largest stars about possible inaccuracyPNSMurthy (talk) 08:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Cruzelébes et al. 2019
Someone has approached me saying that they cannot find the quoted sizes of 697 and 707 solar radii for Betelgeuse and Antares A respectively in the ref Cruzelébes et al. 2019. I too, struggle to locate this. Can you be of assistance? Faren29 14:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faren29 (talk • contribs)

Hi, I calculated that radius by using the angular diameter and distance from that source using Vizier. But later I changed my mind and I think we should be using the previous sizes instead. Nussun05 (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Stars in M31 above 1,000 solar radii
I was just going through the ‘new list’ of largest straw created by Primefac and I saw that you had added stars over a 1,000 radii. I would just like to say that our list goes down to 700 r, not a thousand.PNSMurthy (talk) 11:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC) I might add them later Nussun05 (talk) 11:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC) Sure, it is commendable you even bothered adding the ones you did, I didn’t botherPNSMurthy (talk) 11:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I don’t always have all time in the world, you know. Nussun05 (talk) 11:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of SW Cephei


The article SW Cephei has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "No indication of notability: a lot of these 'large star' articles have been created recently and they aren't independently notable."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sam-2727 (talk) 01:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of SW Cephei for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article SW Cephei is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/SW Cephei until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sam-2727 (talk) 01:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

You can probably just delete it, if it just contains info already present on the list of largest stars, then the page was never meant to be Nussun05 (talk) 07:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

VY Canis Majoris
Hello Nussun05. I saw that new luminosity of for VY CMa but since the Wittkowski Luminosity  of VY CMa is still widely accepted since it is well measured and VY CMa is still referred as one of most luminous red supergiants as of now in refs, we should keep it in the starbox since it is most likely near one or the other but it isn't clearcut which one. After all, VY CMa does not emit the same amount of energy in all directions. So we have to make a range of between rather than ignore it. Thanks. 2A01:E0A:47A:F100:7107:8443:684A:D6EB (talk) 21:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

VY Canis Majoris - again
Is VY Canis Majoris only 1,160 solar radii? this is unusual for an extreme star. Is this True !?!?!?


 * I am currently working that out myself. See VY Canis Majoris, and you will see it's luminosity is 179,000L. Using the Stephan Boltzman law, I gained 1,160. But Nussun05 says the luminosity is not in the ref given by the above mentioned article. I will go and clarify this - than get back to you.

Thanks! PNSMurthy (talk) 01:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Nussun 05,

As you may have seen in the above section, along with the above topic on this page, VY Canis Majoris' article shows Lbol of 178,000. I used this to calculate the radius, then, referencing the reference from the article, I added the size to the New List. But you seemed to have undone my edit. I have re-done this edit, and before you undo it again, check the article again and on Vizier.

Thanks! PNSMurthy (talk) 01:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Please cite that article and the article where the temperature comes from. Both at the same time. Nussun05 (talk) 05:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * A luminosity of 178,000 for VY Canis Majoris was derived from this. It stated so in this namesake discussion's article.PNSMurthy (talk) 06:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

That article does not give a temperature, you’re gonna have to cite the ref that gives the temperature (from 2012) too. Nussun05 (talk) 06:05, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

See the WP article for VYCma, and see the starbox catalogue for temperature. This source is from there. I haven't actually gone through the source. If there is no temperature, the article is wrong, or someone has provided the wrong source,PNSMurthy (talk) 06:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I have already checked the article many times, there are no temperatures given!!! Nussun05 (talk) 06:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

See this:

That was the starbox. the luminosity is given!

As you can see the temperature is from a different ref. Nussun05 (talk) 07:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh... sorry!PNSMurthy (talk) 09:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Q Cygni
Simbad thinks designations starting Q are quasars, and Cygni or Cyg is not a valid format for such a designation. Might not realise there is a problem with this object, or couldn't be bothered coding an exception for just one star. Lithopsian (talk) 14:41, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about V774 Sagittarii
Hello, Nussun05, and welcome to Wikipedia. I edit here too, under the username Lithopsian, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, V774 Sagittarii, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/V774 Sagittarii.

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not ballot-polls. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with. Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Lithopsian (talk) 14:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, do you think the page should be deleted, or should I try to improve it? Nussun05 (talk) 16:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it should be deleted, at least for now. I can't see any way it could pass WP:NASTCRIT.  That's out of my hands for now, though, and we'll find out if I was right in about a week.  You're welcome to work on the article while the deletion discussion takes place.  It can be a good way to demonstrate that it really is a notable object.  Or it can be a waste of effort if it gets deleted anyway.  I suspect it will get redirected to something, maybe the list of largest stars since it isn't mentioned anywhere else.  It can always be brought back in the future if it really turns out to be notable in some way.  Lithopsian (talk) 19:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Ren et al. 2020
Lithopsian laid out a large table of the parameters of stars given in Ren et al. 2020 on Talk:List of largest stars. However, I feel precaution needs to be taken before any are added. We must find if any of these stars are already present in the list, at smaller values. Secondly, a few values in the table are wildly unreliable, such as WOH S173 at, which is clearly impossible for any normal star according to our current understanding of stars. HD 269352 at seems very extreme as well, and M33 342 at  seems potentially dubious. Faren29 (talk), 20:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:List of reddest stars in the night sky


Hello, Nussun05. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of reddest stars in the night sky".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 00:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry
I am sorry for my arguments with you last year, I now realize I wasn't acting mature when we were discussing. Sorry, and please forgive me. The Space Enthusiast (talk) 10:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No it's fine, I forgive you. Nussun05 (talk) 19:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, Thanks.The Space Enthusiast (talk) 04:17, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of List of largest stars by angular diameter


A tag has been placed on List of largest stars by angular diameter requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 15:41, 10 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete it, the redirect is not needed anyway. Nussun05 (talk) 15:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Testing new signature
nu ss un (talk) 15:18, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Cool! It even has the colors of stars, from hottest to coolest !- The Space Enthusiast (talk) 02:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! nu ss un  (talk) 10:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Whats the big idea man.
Why did you add 4 black holes, that cannot be found online, And claim all of them to be larger then TON 618, even though you have NO proof and NO information to prove it. Please I want to know why you did this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.235.152.239 (talk) 06:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I regret adding those, they aren't as large as the likely dubious values that the paper said. Even then saying there's no proof is incorrect, as I did put a citation to a paper. nu ss un  (talk) 07:07, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I remember those absurdly-large Black holes.-The Space Enthusiast (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:New list of largest stars row
Template:New list of largest stars row has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:59, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:New solar radius calculator
Template:New solar radius calculator has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:59, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Verheyen et al 2012
This particular paper has only been used to describe the nomenclature of Stephenson 2-18, as in Stephenson 2-DFK 1. However, I found several interesting things which could be added:

1. The paper measures the radial velocity of Stephenson 2 and other Red supergiant clusters, using Silicon Oxide and Infrared Carbon Monoxide emissions: They measured Stephenson 2 DFK 49's and Stephenson 2 DFK 2's radial velocity, and even included Stephenson 2 DFK 1 (St2-18). Both DFK 49 and 2 had a radial velocity of 101 kilometers per second, but Stephenson 2-DFK 1's radial velocity is lower, around 89 kilometers per second, meaning it is a field RSG unrelated to Stephenson 2.

2. Using the calculations of radial velocities from their own study and Davies 2007, they estimate Stephenson 2's distance to be 5.83 kiloparsecs, or 19,015 light years.

3. A suggestion that RSGC3's mass is likely between 20,000 solar masses to 40,000 solar masses. What are your thoughts?--The Space Enthusiast (talk) 07:46, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Ways to improve Red supergiant problem
Hello, Nussun05,

Thank you for creating Red supergiant problem.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

"Might best be mentioned at supernova where the context will be clearer"

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with. Remember to sign your reply with. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Lithopsian (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I can't find a good place to add a section for it. nu ss un  (talk) 09:33, 29 March 2022 (UTC)


 * How about Supernova? It already mentions that high-mass red supergiant progenitors are not observed and offers a reason why.  Lithopsian (talk) 13:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Hmm should probably mention in inline but I don't know how to in a good way there. nu ss un  (talk) 13:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

List of largest galaxies
I've read the past section that you made on Talk:List of galaxies page, where you want to add a new list for the largest galaxies.

I'd made one here: Draft:List of largest galaxies. It's not quite yet done, but I think it's good enough to have its merits.

If you are interested, you can check out the draft and see for yourself. I'd contacted Parejkoj but there are no replies from him yet. SkyFlubbler (talk) 08:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Discord
I apologize for my frequent inactivity on discord. I cannot create an email account that well. May we communicate here?--The Space Enthusiast (talk) 02:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Why can't you log in to the same account? VY Canis Majoris  (talk) 05:06, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello. I have visited Joseph Pelobello's channel on the list of largest stars and I found out a couple of things.
 * 1.You are making a video on the problems with space channels.
 * I am genuinely interested about what this could be.
 * 2.People are calling out that ESO 383-76's size is based on just one measurement and not considering the others.
 * I have to ask SkyFlubbler about this, since it irked me to see the article claim that the galaxy is 3.5 times the size of IC 1101 albeit having different estimates.
 * 3.Joseph and SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer are working together in spreading the uncertainties of both UY Scuti and Stephenson 2 DFK 1.
 * I think I am on the neutral side of things here. It is true that they have large uncertainties in their measurements, but we also need to acknowledge that they still have the potential to be among the largest stars known, especially for St2-DFK 1.--The Space Enthusiast (talk) 04:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Anyway, that is all I have to say and I would appreciate discussion. Thanks.--The Space Enthusiast (talk) 04:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Supermassive dark stars-WOW!
You recently added a set of stars that are candidates for supermassive dark stars. I know it has been reverted, but do you think these are worth mentioning in other Wikipedia articles?--The Space Enthusiast (talk) 15:17, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but let's wait until it's published like Primefac said. VY Canis Majoris  (talk) 15:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I've heard news that the paper has been accepted.--The Space Enthusiast (talk) 23:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, come one. I recently added a large size estimate of IC 1101 that was likely pertaining to the Intracluster light, and people are starting to cite it! Oh no, I might feel the same regret you had when you added Stephenson 2-18 to the list.--The Space Enthusiast (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited RW Cephei, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Sun. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)