User talk:SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer

Hello, SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Red Director (talk) 01:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright[edit]

Hi - I just reviewed Ackermannviridae, and I'm afraid I cut out a section of it because it was basically word-for-word the same as the source. It's really tricky when you're working from a single source to come up with your own phrasing, and I didn't want to attempt a redraft myself because I don't have the requisite subject-matter knowledge to come up with appropriate alternative language, but I thought I'd better let you know. You can find out more about our copyright policy at COPYVIO. Thanks GirthSummit _(blether) 19:52, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of virus species[edit]

I appreciate the enthusiasm on List of virus species. However, I reverted your changes as the viruses you added are not currently accepted as species at the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses, which is the source listed in the citation for the list. It doesn't mean they are bad articles or aren't 'real' viruses, just that they shouldn't be on the list. I know that the ICTV members are voting on the updated taxonomy now, and will ratify and publish it soon. When that happens, the list here should be updated with the new information and will likely have some of the new species you are interested in. Cheers! --awkwafaba (📥) 19:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes[edit]

Hello. While we appreciate your attempts to help keep scientific classifications on Wikipedia thorough and up-to-date, one of your recent edits doesn't fit the format required for the taxonomy templates to function properly, and it has been reverted or removed. Please have a look at the automatic taxobox documentation where you can find answers to frequently-asked questions as well as guidelines for tweaking the taxonomy templates. If you need further assistance, consider asking for assistance. If you wish to make test edits, please do them in the sandbox. Thank you. --awkwafaba (📥) 18:23, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020[edit]

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. A page you recently created, Kepler-298, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new pages, so it has been moved to Draft:Kepler-298 where you can continue to work on it. Please consider using the Article Wizard or the Articles for Creation procedure. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read "Your first article". You may also want to read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Please add the body text of the article in your first submission or shortly after; articles without infoboxes are eligible for speedy deletion under criterion A3 after 10 minutes. Passenger pigeon (talk) 22:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to List of largest exoplanets, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.

The "show preview" button is right next to the "publish changes" button and below the edit summary field.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Jessicapierce (talk) 22:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SDSS J140821.67+025733.2 moved to draftspace[edit]

An article you recently created, SDSS J140821.67+025733.2, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Minorax (talk) 15:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines for adding new planets[edit]

I noticed you added 4 planets to List of exoplanets discovered in 2020. While all of these are planets previously not reported in wikipedia lists, several points are need to be addressed to improve the quality of your contributions:

Planets in question should be actually added to another page - List of exoplanets discovered in 2019
Too many non-significant digits - leave a maximum of 3 (or 2 if any significant digits exist) of non-significant digits, especially in calculated distances
Place proper references to planet data - reference to top page of exoplanet catalog is not useful
Use wikipedia template cite arXiv|eprint= for arxiv references instead of raw hyperlink. The template will be automatically expanded by wikipedia bot.
Be careful while reporting semi-major axis of planets discovered by microlensing - due to limitation of method, usually exist 2 widely separated solutions for semi-major axis, while summary exoplanet databases usually publish only one, sometimes arbitrarily selected. I advice to check original discovery papers for all microlensing events before reporting semi-major axis.

Trurle (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of mountains by elevation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Laram Q'awa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy errors[edit]

Some recent edits at Template:Taxonomy/Mimiviridae appear to have caused errors ("Lua error in Module:Autotaxobox at line 156: attempt to index a nil value") at:

Also, Template:Taxonomy/Megavirales seems to be unfinished. Please fix the problems soon or revert your changes because the errors need to be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 09:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, Full list of minor planets[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Full list of minor planets. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – List of minor planets. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at List of minor planets. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. MrClog (talk) 10:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Full list of minor planets, a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. MrClog (talk) 10:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Kepler-298[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Draft:Kepler-298, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Golem08 (talk) 14:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have contested the deletion of this draft, so it will not be speedily deleted. Best, MrClog (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UY Scuti[edit]

Please don't remove references from articles, especially with no explanation, as you did at UY Scuti. And please don't then edit the data without providing a new reference. You edits could be interpreted as disruptive, especially when repeated across multiple articles. Lithopsian (talk) 19:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 3[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited V538 Carinae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carina (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020[edit]

Hello, I'm Tarl N.. Your recent edit(s) to the page Messier 87 appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been removed for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Tarl N. (discuss) 16:28, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm CLCStudent. I noticed that you recently removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. CLCStudent (talk) 13:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Taxonomy/Megavirales[edit]

Hello, SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Megavirales".

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 by following the instructions at this link. 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!} 00:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Kepler-298[edit]

Hello, SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Kepler-298".

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 by following the instructions at this link. 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!} 00:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve PMMR 62[edit]

Hello, SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer,

Thank you for creating PMMR 62.

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

see WP:NASTRO for notability guidline

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 {{Re|Graeme Bartlett}}. 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.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatrolled rights[edit]

For what it's worth, contrary to your user page statement, you do not have autopatrolled rights. See here. Tarl N. (discuss) 18:20, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:LGGS objects has been nominated for deletion[edit]

Category:LGGS objects has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Lithopsian (talk) 19:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page moves[edit]

In the future, if a page needs to move to a location where there is already a page and/or redirect, please use WP:RM/TR to ask an administrator or page mover to handle it; copying and pasting within Wikipedia purely for the purposes of moving a page has long been deprecated and creates all sorts of issues. Primefac (talk) 12:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest known stars[edit]

Consider this your final warning for the List of largest known stars; this edit summary makes it sound like you didn't even read the source, let alone the fact that it was in the correct section. Continue reverting without actually checking things and you will be blocked from editing the page. Primefac (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the source and I had mistaken it for the Milky Way section and I did realise that it was after that although I couldn't change the edit summary, it is that simple. Also, I'm not trying to vandalise Wikipedia and I am trying to improve it. Another thing is that it does not make sense to call it my "final warning" because this is only my first warning for this page ever (at least on my user talk). SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer (talk) 17:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LMC/SMC + M31/M33 red supergiants[edit]

Did you email the authors of [1] to obtain the full tables? Could you send them to me? VY Canis Majoris (talk) 08:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All the stars are in the article. For the lower luminosity stars go to pages 29-32 and for the higher luminosity stars go to pages 34-35 (in the arXiv version). SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer (talk) 09:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: PGC 2933 has been accepted[edit]

PGC 2933, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Theroadislong (talk) 11:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: AZ Cygni has been accepted[edit]

AZ Cygni, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

~ Eejit43 (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template val[edit]

I reverted your change at HV 11417, where you replaced the {{val}} template with a number containing a comma for the thousands separator. The reason we use the val template is that not everyone uses commas for digit grouping - in some regions, the comma is a decimal marker (among English-speaking nations, South Africa). In others, the commas go at different intervals (see Decimal separator#Digit grouping). The compromise is to use a thin space separator every three digits before the decimal, which is accomplished by the val template. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 07:06, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Y Cygni (February 20)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by InterstellarGamer12321 was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

The comment the reviewer left was:

The Observation history section is entirely unsourced, while the Characteristics section is empty. More references are needed to establish notability.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Y Cygni and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 12:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 12:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Y Cygni has been accepted[edit]

Y Cygni, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 18:04, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of LGGS J004431.71+415629.1[edit]

The article LGGS J004431.71+415629.1 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet WP:NASTRO whatsoever. It has only been mentioned in tables and a tiny bit outside of them to mention it being a potential foreground object.

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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 09:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of WOH S264 for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article WOH S264 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WOH S264 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 until the discussion has finished.

Lithopsian (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the 90,000 Lsol estimate for Stephenson 2 DFK 1[edit]

This estimate is not accurate, it only considers a small range of fluxes (12-25 μm). This luminosity as well as the 630,000 Lsol one get the value from integrating the spectral energy distribution, which basically means the area under the curve of the flux as a function of wavelength. Since the 90,000 Lsol estimate only considers a narrow range of wavelength space, it only encapsulates a small fraction of the total area, and hence underestimates the luminosity. Pretty sure the 630,000 Lsol value also uses the same IRAS photometry, but also considers the full wavelength range so does not underestimate the luminosity. VY Canis Majoris (talk) 19:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not underestimating the luminosity. I was quite sure it was not so accurate, but it was the best one I could find. Read what I stated in the talk page. SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 12:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The 90,000 Lsol value is still an underestimate even if it seems more plausible, it cannot be used. Even assuming the star is foreground its kinematic distance only reduces to 5.1 kpc, reducing its logL to 5.57 or 5.69 for Humphreys' estimate. VY Canis Majoris (talk) 15:46, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that it is an underestimate (and I don’t use that luminosity anymore). The distance is still uncertain and the star not well studied. The 277,000 L_☉ calculation I mentioned was only based on an assumed extinction. I would therefore say that a logL of 5.57-5.69 is possible but the star needs further research for there to be higher certainty and if it is a red supergiant, the logL is somewhere in the range of 5 to more than 5.6SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 16:00, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on List of smallest exoplanets[edit]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page List of smallest exoplanets, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 12:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing the spectral types of VY Canis Majoris and radius regarding them[edit]

I see that on the VY Canis Majoris page, you stated the value of 2,069 solar radii for VY Canis Majoris is based off an effective temperature inconsistent with its spectral type.

However, VY Canis Majoris is said to have spectral types of M3, M4.5, M2.5, and M5e Ia.

The different spectral types would affect the temperature, and therefore the radius.

We know for certain it's an irregular pulsating variable star.

While the radius of 1,420 solar radii falls within the current theoretical limit for a star's radius in our theory of stellar evolution, pulsations mean the radius changes and that's more true for radial pulsations.

Whether its size ranges from 1,300 to 1,540 (in addition to the margin of error for its calculated radius) or up to 2,069 solar radii (in addition to cool-end of estimates adopted temperature of 2,800 K and a luminosity of 237,000 x that of the Sun) in its pulsations, very little detail was explained in your statement with hardly anything addressed.

The explanation for the edit was somewhat confusing though, just saying. Eric Nelson27 (talk) 10:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The original paper in with 2800 K in 1996 does still have extremely low and obsolete effective temperatures for many stars and includes enormous luminosities. It is better to use a physically possible one, rather than an outdated and spurious one. SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 10:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see and agree. Eric Nelson27 (talk) 14:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest known stars[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. You have reverted my edit at List of largest stars, because you thought my edit was breaching the WP:SYNTHESIS rule. Although using two different sources to calculate a radius seems to violate the Synthesis rule, it actually doesn't.

A WP:SYNTHESIS violation happens only to original research by synthesis, not to synthesis per se. See Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not#SYNTH is not just any synthesis. Calculating a radius of a star using its angular diameter and radius is not considered original research, because simple calculations (it is a simple calculation that can be easily made using a template) are not original research per WP:CALC. Therefore, if it is not original research (according to WP:CALC), it is not WP:SYNTHESIS.

Thanks! InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 19:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A statement by you does not make something true. WP:SYNTHESIS applies to the use of "facts" from two different sources to derive a third "fact", even if the calculation is trivial. Hence, a radius derived using a distance from one source and an angular radius from a different source violate WP:SYNTHESIS, even though the calculation is trivial. If you feel differently, take it to a wider audience such as e project talk page. Lithopsian (talk) 17:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you are misinterpreting this rule. First of all, WP:SYNTH doesn't necessarily refer to using two or more sources:"Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source". Then, all articles that have calculated radii from a luminosity and effective temperature (common in Star-like articles) would be breaching WP:SYNTHESIS, but it doesnt, because routine calculations are not considered original research, hence are not WP:SYNTHESIS. The radius can be calculated using {{Solar radius calculator}} or the equation Diameter (AU) = AD (arcsec) × Distance (pc). InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 12:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It only violates the letter, not the spirit of the policy. The WP:No original research policy was made to make all content in the articles verifiable, and the radius itself is verifiable. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 12:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]