User talk:Lithopsian/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

SMD LED Module

Hi Lithopsian, so if it so "called", please correct the article Surface-mount_technology#Rectangular_passive_components as well. It is the same table I'm using at work and see in multiple references (datasheets etc.). Some examples wanted? No problem: [1], [2], [3] (ooops, unlicensed copy of WP?) and [4], I'm pretty sure, they are not all wrong... Please send me one or more references using this wrong notations, and I will bring you five others for each. Also the referenced table in Surface-mount_technology#Rectangular_passive_components is different to this table. Why do you think it's not a simple error? As mentioned in the edit summary you can yourself easily verify that the 1210 is not identical to 3528. --Wassertraeger (talk) 09:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with your calculations, but that counts for nothing (see WP:SYNTHESIS). None of your links show that a 3528 SMD, and especially an LED, is referred to as a 1411, although in some contexts (eg. capacitors) it is. However 3528 SMD LEDs are frequently described and sold as 1210. Beats me why, might make an interesting paragraph if anyone knows. Maybe they're wrong but we aren't here to fix the world, only to document it. So you made a change, I reverted it. If you want to take it further, the place is Talk:SMD_LED_Module. The recommended procedure is WP:BRD, not WP:BRRR no matter how strongly you feel. FWIW, here are some LED-specific showing the industry-common usage: [5], [6], [7]. I'd just as soon take it out completely. LED SMDs are almost always sold by their metric package sizes even in the US. The whole table is almost unreferenced and on the verge of being removed anyway, but that should all be discussed at the article talk page. Lithopsian (talk) 11:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Please do not refer to unbranded LED from chinese webpages or hungarian internet shops. Let's remove this naming since there is no benefit for it. Concerning WP:BRRR: I have placed a reference, you reverted it without. Is it the way it works? Surely not. Did you use the discussion? So please let's simply remove this single designating which is also in your links not used as a solitude name, just in combination with the metric code. --Wassertraeger (talk) 09:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Stub tags

Please take care not to add {{stub}} to an article like Herrania mariae which already has a specific stub template: it just wastes other editors' time. Thanks. PamD 21:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

New radius estimate for HR 5171

Hi there, Lithopsian. I just came across a new paper (Wittkowski et al. (2017)) that has a new radius value for HR 5171: 1490 ± 540 R_☉, as well as other parameters. Would this be useful for List of largest stars or HR 5171? Loooke (talk) 22:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Certainly, not sure how I missed that paper. The new value is of course identical to the old one within the margins of error. It is worth noting that both Chesneau et al. (2014) measure the angular diameter and derive the linear radius from the assumed distance. This physical radius is not comparable to the "temperature radius" (derived from the effective temperature and luminosity) that is typically (although not always in the list) quoted for stars. The physical radius is often larger and varies strongly with the wavelength observed. Although both papers measure the angular diameter and assume a similar distance, Chesneau derives an effective temperature from the spectrum and calculates the luminosity, while Wittkowski calculates the luminosity and derives a temperature from that. I'll update HR 5171. Lithopsian (talk) 10:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Coherent catastrophism

I am notifying everyone who took part in the first AfD about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coherent catastrophism (2nd nomination). Doug Weller talk 12:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK for S Coronae Borealis

On 14 August 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article S Coronae Borealis, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the star S Coronae Borealis has been estimated as having around 1.34 times the Sun's mass but 308 times its radius? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/S Coronae Borealis. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, S Coronae Borealis), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih^Talk 01:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Adminship

I think you are a great user, and that you deserve a higher place, like being an admin. Thus, I would like to appoint you for adminship, (since you met most of the standards) so what do you think and what do you think of it? I think it will be great. --Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL —Preceding undated comment added 05:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence. I don't think I'm quite ready for this yet. Or perhaps ever. There's lots of things I'm good at, but lots of things I'm not good at. I enjoy editing, probably wouldn't enjoy admin'ing quite so much. Thanks again for the offer to nominate me. Lithopsian (talk) 13:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.ZaperaWiki44 (talk) 13:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

It would be great that you also become a checkuser and an oversight. ZaperaWiki44 (talk) 13:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Nu Persei

Hi, thanks for the revert. I was convinced that Nu Persei was an RR Lyrae variable. I have checked the information, which is somewhat contradictory. Instead of speaking here, we should probably discuss this topic in Nu Persei's talk page. Eynar Oxartum (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

equinox terms again

I see you have edited the article to show that the names of the equinoxes are not reversed in the southern hemisphere even though there was no consensus on the talk page to that effect. Sources were even cited that said they are reversed. Yes, it would be convenient if everyone just used the same names, but that just isn't the case. So I am asking if we can please change it back to show that there is some ambiguity in the terms. --Lasunncty (talk) 05:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't do that. If you really believe there is significant mis-use of the term Vernal Equinox, perhaps that should be mentioned in the article, but I don't feel that a few misunderstandings in popular press are sufficient to change the meaning of a solidly-defined scientific term like this. I would also suggest that the place for discussion is the talk page of (one of) the articles, rather than here. "Private" discussions might sometimes be helpful, but can also give the impression of cooking up side deals and trying to sidestep consensus and full discussion. The discussion at Talk:Equinox unfortunately just got archived (still visible at Talk:Equinox/Archive_2 - note the previous formal merge proposal with pretty threadbare discussion) although the one at Talk:March_equinox is still alive and kicking with more smoke than fire. I still think a merge (several?) would be beneficial but it isn't a quagmire I have time to wade into right now. Perhaps just a serious copyedit, but I can see it descending into chaos. A really experienced editor might be able to pull it off. Lithopsian (talk) 19:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I went directly to you because you made the change despite lack of consensus. You removed the mention of ambiguity that was there, giving the impression that everyone uses the same terms, which is not true. And for what it's worth, the sources you cited don't mention the seasons in the southern hemisphere, so I don't think they can be used to support your position. --Lasunncty (talk) 08:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

The citations I added support a definition of the terms Vernal equinox and Autumnal equinox, whether you agree with it or not; the existence of the southern hemisphere is irrelevant to that definition. I removed a bald statement of fact that the Vernal equinox is in September in the southern hemisphere, because it was uncited and directly contradicted that referenced definition. I have now added a description of this and further references, which will no doubt be controversial. Nevertheless, the citations stand and I will continue to remove contradictory or mis-placed statements that are not cited. As it stands, the article as a whole is very poorly referenced. Statements that I think could be verifiable, but are not currently cited, will get tagged if I'm feeling lazy and possibly cited if I'm feeling enthused; I've just done a major drive-by which isn't pretty but could at least be a starting point for adding much-needed verifiable sources. Lithopsian (talk) 13:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate that you're here talking rather than just edit-warring, but I doubt we'll achieve consensus between the two of us. This is an important article (in Wikipedia terms, just not near the top of my to-do list) and deserves to be a lot better than it is. Perhaps drumming up some interest from project pages might help, or just starting the right discussion on (one of the!) article talk pages. Lithopsian (talk) 14:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

The two additional sources you added to the seasonal terms (now numbered 7 and 8) illustrate the discrepancy very clearly. Thank you. --Lasunncty (talk) 02:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

This discussion touches upon the wider issue of the many journalists with media degrees who do not understand some fairly basic science or its terminology. Verifiability is laudable but in the truth v verification debate even JW has commented (Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:52 UTC 1 September 2011) that editors shouldn't publish untruths, even if there are many independent tabloid citations to support the assertion.

PS Thanks for the thanks. :) Astronomy Explained (talk) 15:29, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

NGC 479 image removal/previous version deletion questions

Why was the Space Engine image on NGC 479 removed? The file page says something about deleting previous versions but keeping the file. This is very confusing. Can you please explain? And can I re-add it to the article?

Thanks. – Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

That image is known as a "non-free" image. It is copyrighted and is only included in Wikipedia on the basis of "fair use". This is a tricky legal term, but for Wikipedia it means that occasionally such images will be allowed where there are no equivalent free images and where it is appropriate for "identification of, and critical commentary on" the software that generated it. The image is included on that basis in the SpaceEngine article (which appears slightly doubtful to me, but it will be looked over carefully). The image resolution has been reduced to meet WP guidelines for non-free images, and the previous high-resolution image will be deleted. You don't need to do anything (unless you think the copyright assessment is wildly in error), but don't re-upload that image in a higher resolution or other Space Engine images without careful checking with the copyright gurus. As for the NGC 479 page, I removed the image as it definitely doesn't meet the non-free use guidelines in that article. Lithopsian (talk) 13:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Antares

I have just made a significant reconstruction of the Properties section of the star Antares, and have especially fixed up the size issues, which were fragmented and confusing. Knowing your past edits on such stars, could you at least please double-check my work.

I also removed two terribly poor reference cites given by JoeyPknowsalotaboutthat and after reading this[8], there might be some possible 'issues' coming. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 01:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Just to let you know. I appreciated your recent updates and corrections to this Antares article here. It is certainly an improvement from the older version. Thanks for looking at this. Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:47, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

For your latest edit:

$R=3.4$ astronomical units

$R=3.4$ AU = $D=1.107$ billion km

$=R:796$ R_☉ (rounded) -> 800 R_☉

jumk.de Stars and Planets also says 796 R_☉ for Antares, but I did not use it. I think that value on jumk.de was taken from Jim Kaler's stars. Thank you. --Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL ^{(Visit/Talk/Contribs)} 20:09, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

?? $R=3.4$ AU = $D=1.107$ billion km

3.4 AU = 510 million km. = 1.020 billion km. Please do your homework.

Kaler actually says: "A low temperature coupled with high luminosity tells us that the star must be huge, luminosity and temperature giving a radius of about 3 Astronomical Units. It is so big that astronomers can easily detect and measure the size of its apparent disk, which gives an even bigger radius of 3.4 AU, 65 percent the size of the orbit of Jupiter. The difference is caused by uncertainties in distance, temperature, the state of pulsation, and the actual location of the mass-losing surface..."

If you use 3 AU you get 588 R_☉ or about 600 R_☉. Article says 680 R_☉. Fair enough. It's cited, it's reasonable, and it now has the needed consensus.

Clearly you are just cherry-picking larger values and ignoring for the nth time the problems gross errors as already explained to you and now exampled in Kaler's own text. So far you have stretched Lithopsian patience[9] to breaking point, now mine. Any further disruptive editing like this and then arbitration processes will immediately begin. So drop it... the unnecessary discussion is now over. Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, I did not notice a typo there. Check out the latest edit I made with a verified higher radius. --Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL ^{(Visit/Talk/Contribs)} 00:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Tendentious editing noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on tendentious editing. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:TE violations by JoeyPknowsalotaboutthat. Thank you. Arianewiki1 (talk) 04:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

NGC Object redirect pages

I just removed the description of the remaining redirections to NGC objects and added {{R from synonym}} instead. Sorry for not doing that right away! The pages should now be OK for approval. WolreChris (talk) 17:45, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Sager Electronics

Sager Electronics Update Hello, I just wanted to let you know that Sager Electronics was updated before the deletion. I removed all salesy terminolgy and rewrote so not to infringe on copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinsmarshall (talk • contribs) 13:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

N11 (emission nebula)/Bean Nebula

Thank you for your edits on my article on N11, I had thought that N11 was called the Bean Nebula, I can change my redirect to the relevant article if necessary.D Eaketts (talk) 21:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Proper names are messy. Who's to say what's right and what's wrong? There are no catalogs, very often the origin of the name isn't even clear. There's at least one other object in the LMC that I've seen called the Bean Nebula. The ESA and NASA sources for the main image are also pretty poorly-worded, giving the impression that the bean-shaped blob is the whole of N11 when it is in fact just a small portion - that happens to be IMO the Bean Nebula, and happens to be for sure NGC 1763 and LHA120-N11B. Lithopsian (talk) 22:02, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I will leave it as N11 for the time being unless it changes in the near future. D Eaketts (talk) 22:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

HD 56847

Hey Lithopsian, I have a message about this article on my talk page for you.

Hello, Lithopsian. You have new messages at D Eaketts's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

D Eaketts (talk) 20:00, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Sock edits

I have no problem with the socks edits being restored.....but be aware he was banned for false numbers. .....I assume you know best and did check the calculations. All the best☺--Moxy (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Its OK, I'm up to my eyebrows in the history of this. I even reverted several of today's edits, but these two are OK. Lithopsian (talk) 21:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I see you have been around the whole time.....all good will leave it up to you.....he's used 2 IP today.--Moxy (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Lithopsian. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File and directory encryption

Hello Lithopsian.

Thank you for letting me know that you have proposed the deletion of this page. You certainly aren't the first to write that what I put on Wikipedia should be deleted. :) On one of the remaining pages I contributed to, Encryption_software, I was trying to begin an article about a type of encryption that is separate and apart from other types of data at rest encryption.

As you probably know, the largest businesses on earth have been using tape devices to hold their backups for decades - and in the last decade or so it has been commonplace to encrypt the data written to tape. Today there are many software applications that provide this feature for both businesses and consumers, not only writing to tape, but also writing to block storage as well. My belief is that this type of encryption is NOT captured in the other articles.

If you agree, what would be needed to change this from an essay to a Wikipedia article that contains information about this type of encryption?

Regards, User93454235 (talk) 21:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

The article is currently tagged for proposed deletion. This is a simplified process where an article that does not meet any criteria for speedy deletion can be removed without going through a formal discussion. It is equally simple to stop the deletion: just remove the tag at the top of the article. However, this tag is usually only added to articles that would seem almost certain to be deleted anyway through a longer articles for deletion (AfD) discussion. A good clue that an article is dubious is that nobody approved it as a new article for over 6 months, although an optimist might say that nobody deleted it either. Personally I don't think the article is saveable simply because the subject is not a good one for an article. The opening says sort of says it all: "... encryption are two types of ..." - an article is generally about one notable subject. So that's the second point, the article should be about a notable subject. Notability is established by multiple independent secondary and tertiary sources. In this case, if I do a Google Books search for "File and directory encryption", I get 12 results which is fewer than some searches for completely made-up terms. Google Scholar is similar, 6 results. So my advice is to think carefully about whether it is the right title for the subject you want to describe, whether it is "a thing" that is important enough to need a Wikipedia article, and whether you can demonstrate that notability to a bunch of reviewers who don't really understand what encryption is. Think fast though, because it may be deleted as early as tomorrow. Anybody can remove the tag and save it, at least for now. I don't usually submit article to AfD in those situations, although if an article creator is obviously just taking the mick then I might. Somebody else might take the ball and run with it though. Lithopsian (talk) 16:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Alpha Centauri

For what it's worth, my comments to the editor on the change you reverted. What attracted my attention was the numbers were simply wrong; proper motion and precession won't produce that level of change (1900 years, at 1/13th of the precession cycle, won't cause a 15+ degree shift in latitude. Worst case is 47 degree shift in 11000 years). I pursued the reference, but what I found was sufficiently unreliable that I wanted him to take a second look - an archived copy of an adaption from a defunct page, didn't qualify to me as a reliable source. I think we're correct in the article now. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 21:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Precession from AD 150 (?) to 2000 would be around nine degrees (further south). Proper motion is headed north! All tied up with orbital motion, so I wouldn't want to be too pedantic, but less than a degree over the same period. Ecliptic coordinates don't really match up either, but Ptolemy is known to have been pretty inaccurate on southern stars. Lithopsian (talk) 21:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

MY Cephei

Hi, Lithopsian. I read the page NGC 7419. It says that MY Cephei has a temperature of 2,600 K and a luminosity of 180,000 times brighter than the sun. Using the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, this will give a large radius of 2,090 times that of the sun (or 2.91 billion km), which is larger than UY Scuti and comparable to the Saturn's orbit. Would this be useful for List of largest stars. ZaperaWiki44^{(✉/Contribs)} 14:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

You really shouldn't combine those two values. They are derived independently under different assumptions. In fact the luminosity is explicitly derived (in 1974, which makes it pretty obsolete and not comparable to modern calibrations) assuming a different temperature. The 2,600 K figure is also somewhat unreliable, approximated from an old luminosity-temperature relation; really only of use for statistical purposes on a large sample of stars. I don't have a useful source for a radius for MY Cephei. Despite its unusual, almost unique, spectral type for a red supergiant, it is poorly studied and I couldn't really justify an article for this very faint star. Nobody out there is shouting about this being the largest known star: there are plenty of other examples, much better-studied, that were thought to be as large or larger based on data from that era. Lithopsian (talk) 14:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

"Please confirm classification"s

Now that you bring it up... I completely forgot about these (there's only ~400). Anything not assessed by now (1.5 years later) probably won't be anytime soon. I'll go through them when I need a change of pace from current projects. Could use the help if you're willing.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  21:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I've done some. Most are outside the areas I usually work in, so I'm not confident of the ranking schemes for those projects. Most look like stubs to me, but some appear to have expanded considerably since the report was run. Lithopsian (talk) 14:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Ripple pictures to Tabula scalata

Dear Lithsopian, After you nominated the page Ripple pictures for deletion I moved it to Tabula scalata. This term seems relatively common and has some decent results in a Google Books search. I hope you can agree and will state so in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ripple pictures that has just been relisted.Joortje1 (talk) 15:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)Joortje1

I've sort of been keeping up with this. Ripple pictures currently redirects to Lenticular printing#Ripple pictures although that section doesn't actually exist. There is a Lenticular printing#Turning pictures section. Not too important at this stage, but good to know if you thought it still redirected to Tabula scalata. Since the original Ripple pictures (should be singular, of course) has now been renamed twice (more?), I think I'll add a short history in the AfD. Right now anyone new to the discussion is likely to be clueless about what is going on. Lithopsian (talk) 15:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm PRehse. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Caesalpinia mimosoides, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

PRehse (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

8 Draconis

Hi. Thanks for your comments on this draft article. I'm happy for the article to be created directly if that's permissible. I have created articles before, but just following the (so-called) Help pages led me to the current position! How do I move it - just delete the {{Afc submission ... } lines at the top and bottom? An alternative strategy: do you know anyone in the AfC team who could expedite approval? Cuddlyopedia (talk) 05:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

No need to "move", that might be considered as an attempt to bypass normal procedures. To quote the guidelines: "If you are logged in, creating a draft before directly publishing the article is optional. Editors may instead choose to create draft pages in their userspace, or directly into mainspace, if they prefer." Just go to 8 Draconis and paste in what you want the article to look like, without the Afc tags. Remember to delete the draft first to avoid possible confusion (blank the page or add a db-userreq tag at the start). It then exists. There is a review process which can delete inappropriate articles, but this one should be kept, probably tagged as a stub. Or keep editing if you think more can be added or fixed in the article. Lithopsian (talk) 11:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Proportion

Hi, you reverted my edits on Proportion (mathematics) page, giving context as the reason. I suggest you going beyond this petty "reason" and consider my edits calmly. Check the algebra textbook reference. Check the Korean and Japanese pages. The edits I made are completely in line with other wikis, and the name of the page directly corresponds to the name of the concept. Mikus (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Page redirects, keep or delete if incorrect? It depends on the potential harm you could do.

Please reconsider your personal policy with regard to misleading or incorrect redirections of pharmaceuticals. It is a very dangerous practice to knowingly confuse two distinctly different molecules. Not only is this an ethical issue there could be a other repercussions that undermine the reputation of Wikipedia. Get some advice from a relevant health practitioner if you are not sure, I certainly did. Dsmatthews (talk) 04:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Get a grip, man. There are ways to remove a redirect, after discussion. Unilaterally blanking it is not the way. Read WP:REDIRECT to learn what redirects are for, then WP:R#CRD for when and how to delete them, then take your crusade elsewhere (starting here). Lithopsian (talk) 11:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

K2-155d

What do you think about the article so far? I divided it into sections. However, I do need help with the characteristic section. Anything I can add in the section (if so, feel free to bullet list it). Just curious. LovelyGirl7 talk 19:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not really an expert on exoplanets; they didn't exist when I was studying astrophysics! You could use the original paper as a reference and there's loads of stuff in there, planetary data, a rundown on the host star, and details of their observations. I found it much more informative (and accurate, lots of mis-readings or mis-writings on the web links) than any of the web writeups. Lithopsian (talk) 20:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Lithopsian: I liked the source. I added one of the sentences to the article under the “Characteristics” section and the source in general. I still need time to improve the article, however. —LovelyGirl7 talk 00:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

WikiJournal of Science

Hi Lithopsian. I noticed you've extensively contributed to a number of high-quality astronomy articles. If you'd be interested in putting any through external peer review and academic publication, let me know. The WikiJournal of Science dual-publishes articles both as a stable PDF, and into Wikipedia to benefit from the rigours of formal peer review, as well as the extreme reach of the encyclopedia (e.g. The Cerebellum). Anyway, let me know if you're interested. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 06:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

TFA

Thank you for Capella, "the sixth brightest star in the sky. It's been a collaborative effort"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:57, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

VY CMa and the largest known star

Hi, Lithopsian. Sorry for my edits on VY Canis Majoris and List of largest stars. I didn't move VY CMa to the top because I wanted but because there is a paper claiming this star as the largest known star but it supports the 1420±120 R_☉.

In addition, the papers (possibly not all) are more reliable than Wikipedia and the websites that quote it. If the doc says VY CMa is the largest, it could still be the largest. As for example, UY Scuti being the largest star is unreferenced (possibly WP:OR) and the sites saying it is the LS are not reliable as they quote Wikipedia as a reliable source. So, that might be a reason why we have to move VY Canis Majoris to the top. Should we move VY CMa to the top with the former 1,800–2,100 R_☉ (1,708 < 2,100) or it stays at the same top as KY Cygni (1,420)? ZaperaWiki44^{(✉/Contribs)} 11:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Alcolea et al say "the highest among well-characterized stars in the galaxy", note the caveat. I don't know if they specifically regard UY Scuti as not well-characterised or are just giving themselves a get-out. The formal quoted error for UY Sct is 192 R_☉ and for VY CMa 120 R_☉, so not massively different. Ironically, the result showing UY Sct to be larger than the 1,420 R_☉ value for VY CMa was derived by the same researchers using essentially the same methodologically and instrumentation, so it would be difficult to consider one well-characterised and not the other. VY CMa has been "popularly" known as the largest star for about a decade and maybe these things just stick in the mind. Possibly the authors just hadn't seen the UY Sct paper published most likely while their paper was being written.

So, what to do. What not to do might be simpler: don't cherry-pick values to try and meet some pre-conceived notion, even if that notion is a statement from a reliable source; and don't reorder a list in a way that contradicts the values we choose to show in the list. Same old problem, how much to report older results to establish context and a timeline, and how much to rely on newer results which ought to be "better" but may not tell the whole story and may simply be less reliable (eg. that VY CMa is a normal large-ish red supergiant, published in a reliable source by a well-known researcher in the field, but never widely accepted and now largely superceded and ignored). Of course List of largest stars has always been a bad idea, the "real" differences between the top dozen or even 50 stars are likely smaller than the errors in our measurements of them, so the star at the top of the list is simply the one which we got the most wrong, and picking a single value out of all the published results for these stars is dubious at best. Still, its there, I'm sure people love to see it, I know whatever star is top gets splashed all over the web, so getting rid of it isn't really an option.

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with things as they are now. VY CMa could certainly state in the text that it was considered the largest star at certain times and reference people that said it. The UY Sct paper doesn't seem to make that claim despite producing a convincingly larger radius than VY CMa. Just keep reporting what reliable sources say, emphasize the most recent results, preferably ones that take into account and summarise previous studies, cherry pick (because we need to pick a few or just one, value in some places) as objectively as possible, show ranges if necessary, occasionally show results from different authors where they are both reliable but contradictory, and explain details in the text. As for the list, same thing, but be more brutal about picking one value, or it just becomes "List of some big stars in no real order". My personal opinion, the templates in individual articles trying to order all the biggest stars are a pretty bad idea, more meaningless even than the list due to a lack of context. Other than perhaps one largest star just because people want to know, stating that a star is (for example) the third-largest is difficult to maintain, probably wrong, and very hard to provide a verifiable reference for. Say its one of the biggest, perhaps say it was at some stage considered the biggest (with a citation!), but going further stretches things a lot. Lithopsian (talk) 16:21, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

V838 Monocerotis - Possessive Pronoun

I apologize from the incorrect edit, I misread the article, I immediately reverted from a computer at the same time you did as I noticed my mistake immediately. I will refrain from editing without solid information on the subject. I wish to ensure that this is not seen as vandalism but an attempt to make a correct contribution. Please revise my edits, referring to "continues" and "This data is from", Is this gramatically correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.216.1.76 (talk) 13:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Got to be quick to beat me to an edit ;) There are disagreements about whether "ejecta" and "data" should be treated grammatically as singular or plural; I've left your changes (WP:DONTREVERT), but maybe someone else will come along and decide otherwise. Lithopsian (talk) 13:15, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

26 Draconis

Could I prevail on you to give me a quick sanity check on this edit to 26 Draconis? I added a comment about a week ago in the Talk:26 Draconis page, but evidently nobody is watching it. So I was bold and made a questionable edit. I'm somewhat leery of committing the cardinal sin of WP:OR here, saying a cited source is incorrect, so I'd appreciate a second pair of eyes. I've found multiple sources for coordinates of 26 Draconis and Gliese 685, all with separations in the 12-14 arc minute range. At least some of the variance is the different epoch for the sources, the original Hipparcos values are somewhat different than the Hipparcos II values available on Vizier.

Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 00:29, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Slavic spirits

Thank you for your interest shown for articles about Slavic spirits. I have been trying to sketch a way to put an order into all those small, badly written, and totally unsourced articles. I invite you to take part in the discussions which are unfolding here.--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 13:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

CSDP

How do you propose I move/redirect CSDP to Common Security and Defence Policy? I had already proposed the move at the CSDP page's talk page. -Ssolbergj (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

If the move is considered uncontroversial, but you can't do the move yourself because there is a page in the way and you haven't got the permissions to get rid of it, then go to Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Uncontroversial_technical_requests where you can request an administrator to do the move. It doesn't look controversial to me, and nobody has complained so far about the proposal, so give it a try. Sometimes the administrator will decide it needs a formal discussion, and a request can be made later to reverse it, so it makes sense to be sure nobody is going to seriously object first. Lithopsian (talk) 20:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Calculating luminosity

I saw your contributions on RSGC1 where you added the 363,000 L_☉ for RSGC1-F02 for example but I cannot see this value in the paper (It says log(Lbol/L⊙) = 5.56). It was probably calculated from a certain method (not by radius and temperature). Maybe you know how to do and I (really) need the formula how to calculate it to improve the Westerlund 1 page. 88.188.215.39 (talk) 09:27, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

To convert a log of x (base 10 in this case) to the actual value, just do 10^x. That's all. Calculations much more complex than that should be avoided or explicitly explained in a footnote. Lithopsian (talk) 12:55, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

And the same for the given luminosity of RW Cephei. The 550,000 L_☉ is not in the given ref. Besides, it doesn't say 10^5.74 L_☉. 88.188.215.39 (talk) 12:31, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) That comes from the bolometric magnitude given, listed as -9.6. The Sun's bolometric magnitude is 4.75. That's a difference of 14.35. To calculate a luminosity ratio from a magnitude difference, it's 100^(ΔM_bol/5). In this case, 100^2.87 = 550000. Tarl N. (discuss) 13:27, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm PRehse. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, ISO currency code, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

PRehse (talk) 09:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Review

I got a notification that, "The page Vaginal intercourse has been reviewed." Sorry to bother you, but the notification gives little to no information and I'm curious. Vaginal intercourse is a redirect that has been around since 2005. I don't know whether the page was inspected, surveyed, examined, or critically evaluated. Wikipedia:Reviewing has eleven internal links. Would you mind telling me about your review? Hyacinth (talk) 02:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

When a page switches from a redirect to a non-redirect, or vice-versa, it needs to be reviewed as a new article. Vaginal intercourse was a redirect and is now a redirect, but in between it was temporarily changed to not be a redirect. One of the things I do is tidying up these loose ends. So nothing to worry about. Lithopsian (talk) 12:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit to LMC distance

You undid my correction to the distance to the LMC. I'd like to argue against that.

On page 690 of the "The Hubble Constant" (2010) citation there is a reference to a 2006 calculation that agrees with 18.41 (±0.1), however in section 13.1.5, on page 684 in the last paragraph it clearly states "The W(V,VI) Wesenheit function gives a minimized fit between the Galactic and the LMC Cepheids corresponding to a true distance modulus of μ(LMC)o = 18.44 ± 0.03 mag. Correcting for metallicity (see Section 3.1.3) would decrease this to 18.39 mag. [...] a newly revised systematic error on the distance to the LMC of 3% (or ± 0.06 mag)"

Unless I am sorely mistaken this suggests that the newer measurement is indeed 18.39±0.06 and you are incorrect to suggest that the value is acceptable at 18.41.

Regardless, 18.39±0.06 entirely falls into the error margin of the 2006 value.

If newer data is available elsewhere that counteracts this and supports 18.41 then I'll accept that, but for now, I believe the change is in error and I implore you to read the relevant sections of the journal.

Finally, you claimed the abstract of the source being discussed contains the 18.41 value and this is a wholly false claim. The abstract on the front page of the copy of the document I retrieved from annualreviews.org (requires institutional sign-in) makes no reference to the LMC at all, speaking only on the Hubble constant. 51.9.11.10 (talk) 21:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'll note that more recent research, notably reference [2] (https://www.nature.com/articles/nature11878 7-march-2013), gives the distance as 49.88 ± 0.13 kpc to a set of eight late-type eclipsing binaries, and by derivation, 49.97 ± 0.19 kpc for the barycenter of the LMC. The eclipsing binary method largely eliminates reddening as a source of error (0.4%). Your preferred figure of 47.6 kpc is older and less precise. Tarl N. (discuss) 22:08, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

The paper being referred to in the article is Macri 2006. It re-calibrates the Cepheid luminosity function and then uses that re-calibration to produce an LMC distance modulus of 18.41. That's what the article says. The Wikipedia article goes on to give two more recent papers that confirm that value, with several distance modulus values within the margin of error of 18.41, including one (not the only one!) of 18.39. Don't get hung up on what you "know", simply report what the sources say. The whole section needs some work, for example two uncited paragraphs, with eclipsing binaries mentioned, then other older methods described, then the eclipsing binaries again - confusing. Lithopsian (talk) 12:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Alright, so there's a range of "accepted" values, perhaps it would be best to update it for the 2013 value discovered by Tarl N. above. Given it is newer by at least 3 years over the other sources, and further his new value does not include the older values within its precision error, which would make them outright wrong? I actually need a good value to use for a research project I'm in the middle of when I ran across this conflicting sources problem so I feel it should be rectified as soon as it can be. 51.9.11.10 (talk) 17:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The infobox already has the value mentioned (and article cited). Replying to question on IP's own talk page. Tarl N. (discuss) 22:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Moa-priset redireced

Hi, Lithopsian. there,The problem is that Moa-priset is a separate article but it has been simply redireced to another article by changing the path, what is your suggestion? SalmanZ (talk) 14:02, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

What you wish to do is known as a split. If you try this and it is contentious, which it must be since two different editors (three if you count the fix to my revert) have undone your edit, then you can formally open a discussion on the article (not the redirect) talk page. You should probably read the guidelines for when to split articles before proposing this, so that you're not wasting your and everyone else's time with a no-hoper. Just my opinion, but Arbetarnas bildningsförbund is hardly anything but a list of Moa-priset awards, so there is not a good case for splitting it into two pointlessly short articles. Readers will easily find the information they want, that's what redirects are for. Lithopsian (talk) 14:30, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Lithopsian. Thanks very much for your practical suggestion indeed. SalmanZ (talk) 16:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

WR 31a

Heya, can you point me to where you got the Gaia DR2 data for this star? I've trolled through VizieR for a while and can't find anything that matches properly. That change in parallax changes the distance upwards by almost four times... — Huntster (t @ c) 02:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

For DR2 in VizieR: [10]. Its only been there a couple of days, obviously. For WR 31a, the margin of error is large, at least relative to the very small parallax, plus there are potentially some systemic errors (also small, but significant for such a tiny parallax) so all that can really be said is it is distant. I would suggest that the DR2 parallax isn't inconsistent with the previously-published distances of 8-9 kpc. You could even say it was consistent with the DR1 parallax (0.80±0.58 mas if you allow for a 0.3 mas systemic error. So all very interesting, but doesn't really change anything except to nix the idea of a much closer distance that was floated last year. Roll on DR3. Lithopsian (talk) 10:10, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Yep, every release cycle just makes me look forward to the next one. But my question was how did you find WR 31a *in* the DR2 database? Its pre-existing Gaia ID returns no results, nor does searching by any other identifier I tried. — Huntster (t @ c) 14:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Lithopsian, hi. If I may ask again, what was the Gaia ID for the record that you used for updating this article? Since none of the existing IDs for WR 32a match the DR2 database, did you just match based on RA/DEC, or something else I'm not seeing? Also, I'd like to investigate some way to add a parameter to {{Cite DR2}} to add some kind of parameter that would link directly to the DR2 database. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:14, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The, almost invisible, link in my first reply should take you directly to the VizieR record for WR 31a. Gaia ID is 5338229115839425664, thank goodness for cut'n'paste. I usually search VizieR using the object matching at the top of the page. Have to do it to the arc-second for Gaia and even then might get more than one record, so check other parameters like the magnitude are a good match. Seemed to work fine for WR 31a, just pulled down one record with the right magnitude. There is also a preprint about WR 31a and the DR2 parallax which shows the same info. Not sure how practical it is to automate that. Lithopsian (talk) 12:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the record id. That original link, unfortunately, just goes to the general DR2 release, not to any specific record. I did figure that it was a coordinate search you used, but wanted to make sure I wasn't doing something wrong. That pre-print is great, thanks for pointing it out. Additionally, I did manage to add a variable to {{Cite DR2}} to link directly to a record, i.e.: {{Cite DR2|5338229115839425664}} ->

Brown, A. G. A.; et al. (Gaia collaboration) (August 2018). "Gaia Data Release 2: Summary of the contents and survey properties". Astronomy & Astrophysics. 616. A1. arXiv:1804.09365. Bibcode:2018A&A...616A...1G. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833051. Gaia DR2 record for this source at VizieR.

— Huntster (t @ c) 11:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, my mistake with the link. Good idea with passing an ID field. I saw a reference with a manual VizieR link yesterday, have to see if I can track it down, probably on my watchlist. Lithopsian (talk) 11:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Gaia DR2/KH 15D

Hi,

I understand that there is no DR1 information on KH15D, but the Gaia website (https://gea.esac.esa.int/archive/documentation/GDR2/Miscellaneous/sec_credit_and_citation_instructions/) states:

"If you have used Gaia DR2 data in your research, please cite both the Gaia mission paper and the Gaia DR2 release paper:

• Gaia Collaboration et al. (2016): Description of the Gaia mission (spacecraft, instruments, survey and measurement principles, and operations); • Gaia Collaboration et al. (2018b): Summary of the contents and survey properties."

I'm only following the rules when I added back the "gaia ref1"

That is why we have {{Cite DR2}}. Put what you think should be the correct attribution in that template. Or better yet, discuss it on the talk page and get consensus on the best layout. Otherwise you can happily spend the rest of your life editing the several hundred DR2 refs already in WP, and the new ones being added every day, and you'll have a never-ending edit-war on your hands because someone will always disagree with something. FWIW, the attribution instructions say a lot more, but that's exactly why it should be discussed. Some of the best astro citation brains already watch that template, and you can attract more attention at the project talk page if you think it is needed. Lithopsian (talk) 13:22, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

HotCat question

Thank you, as always, for cleaning up my mistakes on pages like PDS 70. I had one question for you - I've noticed a couple of times now that you use HotCat to add a single category, and do this multiple times (for multiple edits). Genuinely out of curiosity, why do you do this instead of adding all 3-5 and then saving the page at once? Primefac (talk) 14:29, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Habit, mostly. Lack of planning, too. I see something and HotCat is so easy to use that I just fill it in. Going to Save, then starting to add categories, means I have to realise I'll have to add more than one, then think (oh no!) about when I'm finished. Not really worth it for just two or three. Sometimes I do see that I've added a whole bunch of categories individually but by then its a bit late. Lithopsian (talk) 14:44, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Hehe, fair enough. Primefac (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Stealth page move of Alpha Herculis

Hi. Dean9901 has again moved the Alpha Herculis article to Rasalgethi (binary) as a minor edit (! - that shouldn't be allowed), despite your earlier reversal etc. I tried to undo it myself, but was unable to "because it involves content outside the main slot", whatever that means. How do we escalate this to get it reversed? Cuddlyopedia (talk) 08:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I think that error means you tried to do the undo before moving the page back? Should be OK now, and User:Dean9901 is now blocked. Lithopsian (talk) 09:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Etymology of Szczecin

While Etymology of Szczecin was (for a short time) an article, I nominated it for deletion, but while I was filling the Twinkle nomination you reverted it back to the redirect, and now the nomination article has a redirect as a _target. Would you mind if I restore the article text so that we could properly discuss how much the article is appropriate and whether it needs to be redirected? I tried to speedy my nomination, but already one user commented, and it is not anymore possible. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:50, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about that. It needs something, because there is no notice on the page (current, as redirect) about the AfD. Whatever causes less confusion. Lithopsian (talk) 09:59, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Great, thank you. I will revert to the article and add an AfD notice. As it looks now, the AfD will converge to a redirect anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Bilingualism

Hei Lithopsian, the page Bilingualism exist in other wikis. Please, add references and sources, but do not reverse unnecessarily these editions. Rodinelson Nivaeldo da Silva (talk) 15:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Question on Constellation

Good morning, Lithopsian. I saw your reversion at my edit in Constellation. You justified it as being "almost unintelligible". Were you referring to the part "separated by archs of right ascensions and declinations and grouped by asterisms of their historically most important stars"? Because if it is so, it is not "unintelligible": it is the scientific concept of constellation in an astrophysicist's terms. If there's any problem with my English, I fully welcome grammar corrections. But if the misunderstandings were related to the terminology, then they're unjustified, because they're correct and were simply even copied from another article (and properly sourced). If you were referring to neither of these, then what part of my edition did you find "unintelligible"? Thanks for your attention. EleassarBR (talk) 15:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

My comment was referring to the whole thing. It was unintelligible to the point where I couldn't even tell what you were trying to say, so I couldn't just fix the language. If it was copied from somewhere else, then it shouldn't have been because that is plagiarism, you need to write articles in your own words except for short attributed quotations. If it was translated from the original French IAU text then it needs to be translated better, and still written in your own words. The source is not a problem, simply the text you wrote. Sorry, but it needs to be in grammatical English. If you still feel your text was appropriate and correctly written, or at least close enough to be corrected easily, then go the the article talk page and ask. It is a fairly well-watched article and should get some responses. Otherwise, for even more expert eyes on the ball, you could try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy although that would generally be overkill for an edit on a single article. Lithopsian (talk) 15:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Revert of page "Quantum field of magnet"

Dear Sir Lithopsian, This page refers to a recent discovery made and published, on magnetic fields using the device ferrolens and is apart from the ferrolens page because its potential significance for physics in general and academic research and development.

It suggests the discovery of magnetic monopoles in essence inside every magnet. This is important and the Wikipedia community must be aware and can not be dismissed from this information. This page deserves its own space and I was in the process to evolve and expand it.

Please reinstate and revert the page "Quantum field of magnet" in its previous state.

If the revert will not be undertaken by the Senior editor or contacted by him/her in the next 6hours period I will revert the page so it can be further edited and expanded in the near future. I will keep the physics-stub category though until the page is expanded sufficiently.

Kind Regards,

Markoulw

Markoulw (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Threats, nice. That's not how WP works, I'm afraid. You are welcome to revert changes made by any other editor, but the recommended course of action is bold, revert, discuss and not edit war - in other words, when someone reverts one of your edits, don't get into a war about it, but open the subject for discussion. The correct place for such discussion is the article talk page, although the talk page of a newly-created article is unlikely to be visited. A more formal approach would be to reinstate the article and open an AfD, a discussion about whether it should be deleted. Possible outcomes would include a redirect rather than an outright delete - or keeping the article. Before going that way, you should familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's definition of notability which may not conicide with your own personal feelings or the normal expectations in your field. Just for the record, please read WP:COI and consider its implications for you, as explained in more detail at the top of your talk page. Lithopsian (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Dear Senior Editor Lithopsian,

No. Respect. I was merely waiting for your response to my explanations of why this separate page is important before I do anything. Sorry, to see that you feel that you were threatened by me . On the contrary my intentions were to respect your decision and wait for your reconsideration after the explanations I have given to you, but I can not wait indefinitely. I now have an expanded version of the page "Quantum field of magnet" I will update it with and kindly ask you to review and reconsider.

Kind Regards,

Markoulw Markoulw (talk) 16:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Citation bot assisted edit error

FYI, your recent edit with citation bot assistance produced reductive useless title information, [11]. I've filed a bug report against that error at citation bot. Obviously "A 2-3 billion year old major merger paradigm for the Andromeda galaxy and its outskirts" is not the same as "OUP accepted manuscript", in identifying the journal article being sought. -- 65.94.42.168 (talk) 05:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn't noticed that. I'll manually fix the minor errors in the previous version of the citation instead of letting the bot do it. Lithopsian (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Or not, thanks again. Lithopsian (talk) 20:05, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

No problemo -- 65.94.42.168 (talk) 04:28, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Rat-shot to Snake shot

Can you move Rat-shot to Snake shot? I have been unable to do so.--RAF910 (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Snake shot has unfortunately been edited by another user since creation and so cannot be overwritten by normal users. The edit was simply a redirect category, which is not really what this block is intended for, but there you go. You can request a technical move by an admin, although it may be rejected if the admin feels the move is not completely uncontroversial. Alternatively, there is a discussion process. You should also carefull consider the title of the new page: Snake-Shot, Snake Shot, Snake-shot, and Snake shot all exist as redirects. You overwrote, and I reverted, Snake Shot, but this almost certainly shouldn't be the new article title because of the capitalisation. You should be able to overwrite Snake-Shot yourself, but again this doesn't look like the correct title. Lithopsian (talk) 20:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough...I will leave a message on User:Materialscientist talk page. If you would like to comment there that would be appreciated. Thank you. --RAF910 (talk) 20:28, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Luhman 16

Hey there, could I get your opinion about something? Over at Luhman 16, an editor inserted a personally created image of its proper motion, which works great for that section, but the user insists that it must be the lead image, and is warring to keep it there. I rather feel that the resolved image of the stars themselves is the best representative image for the article. I'm obviously involved at this point and can't take administrative action myself, so I was wondering your thoughts, whether I should pursue this or just give up. — Huntster (t @ c) 11:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I waded in. Or did you just want an opinion? I can't say whether you should continue to pursue it but the editor is clearly being unreasonable. I don't like animations as the lead image in the starbox anyway, and the information it shows is interesting but incidental as well as too intricate and distracting (if your browser continues to animate it). Lithopsian (talk) 13:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Those are exactly my reasonings as well. Always your prerogative re: "wading in", but your thoughts on the matter were greatly appreciated. — Huntster (t @ c) 13:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Revert on Gene Klein

Hi, I've reverted your edit that removed the article stub I wrote about the soccer coach Gene Klein. I've gone ahead and fixed all links within Wikipedia that link to Gene Klein instead of Eugene V. Klein, and there is also a hatnote on the Gene Klein article pointing to the Eugene V. Klein. However, it's possible that there needs to be a discussion about which person is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the name "Gene Klein". Because the businessman's article was titled "Eugene V. Klein", I assumed that "Gene Klein" was just an occasionally-used nickname for him, but I don't know much about him so I'd welcome a move discussion. But, the soccer coach article definitely should continue to exist somewhere -- having coached the fully-professional team Pittsburgh Riverhounds for five years, he definitely passes WP:NFOOTY. Cheers, IagoQnsi (talk) 04:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

It looks like User:Bagumba has gone ahead and moved the businessman to Gene Klein, moved the soccer coach to Gene Klein (soccer), and added a hatnote to Gene Klein linking to the disambiguation page at Eugene Klein. This seems like a good resolution to me; I hope this works for you as well. Cheers, IagoQnsi (talk) 08:14, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

All looks good right now. I did not have an issue with notability, but with re_targeting the redirect. There are quite a number of existing articles that link to Gene Klein. The majority of the them certainly care about the major league baseball magnate rather than the soccer coach. One or two links added by you expect the soccer coach and one expected someone completely unrelated. So after your original edit, all those links pointed to an unexpected page, with no way for anyone to know everything was broken. A hatnote is an insufficient remedy for this. If it is necessary to re_target a redirect, or convert it to an unrelated topic, or a disambiguation page, incoming links should always be fixed first. Then a hatnote can be added if there may be confusion in the future about which article someone might be looking for. Lithopsian (talk) 13:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@IagoQnsi: I was unaware of this discussion when I made the move. I was familiar with Klein though his owning the San Diego Chargers, and he was mentioned more as "Gene Klein" in that context. I was bold and made the move based on Google Book search results. However, he was often called "Eugene" as well, so I can respect if anyone feels strongly enough and feels WP:RM is needed if they believe there is no primary topic. However, the coach is definitly not the primary topic. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 08:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Bagumba: for the very complete set of edits on this topic. Lithopsian (talk) 13:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Wafa field-Waha field

Hi, you undid my edit removing the redirect from Wafa field to Waha field. I realize that deleting the redirect leaves Wafa field as a blank page, which is apparently why you undid my edit — but having the first page redirect to the second is incorrect, as they're completely different, and in different parts of Libya (I made this edit because I'm doing oil & gas research work and the fact that the first page redirects to the second screwed me up for like 20 minutes, because I was operating under the mistaken assumption that the two were the same). I don't have time to create a new page for Wafa field — what would be the correct thing to do here? delete the page Wafa field, so that any links to the page are redlinks? CircleAdrian (talk) 14:34, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

There is a formal discussion process for deleting redirects. Before you get all gung-ho, it is worth reading the blurb up front because it is notoriously difficult to delete a redirect. For example, "being wrong" isn't a sufficient reason. Any redirect is basically considered to be better than no redirect unless it is actively confusing, mis-leading, abusive, spam, etc. In this case, the redirect is from a term with no article to an article on a slightly related subject. The best you might hope for from a discussion would be a better redirect, and you can probably come up with one of those on your own. Western Libyan Gas Project or Elephant field? I don't know if those are appropriate or not, but remember the idea that sending people somewhere is better than sending them nowhere. Lithopsian (talk) 19:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

My point is that the redirect *is* actively misleading, since it redirects to the incorrect field. I can't possibly see how sending people to the incorrect page is better than sending them nowhere. If there was no article on George H. W. Bush and a search for his name redirected users to a page for George W. Bush, would that be better than a dead link? Honestly, this kind of thing is why more people don't edit Wikipedia. CircleAdrian (talk) 06:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Even if the redirect is actively misleading, blanking is not the right approach (except for the case where you are the original and only substantive author). The simplest solution is to redirect it somewhere better, remembering to take care of any incoming links. To get rid of the redirect completely, use the WP:RFD procedure. A redirect does not mean the terms are synonyms, just that there might possibly be something (even remotely) of interest at the _target article. Deleting redirects is a hard ask, you'll need to demonstrate that any readers looking for Wafa field are better off getting a redlink or nothing than being sent to Waha field. If you think you can do that, then go for it. Complaining here won't help, I'm just me. Complaining at the redirect talk page might be marginally more helpful, someone may come up with a better solution. Lithopsian (talk) 13:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Joey717

Hi there, this is an urgent message the userpage titled User:Joey717. On User:Joey717 there is a category located in the bottom titled Category:People from Winnipeg. Categories are not allowed to add on userpages under WP:USERNOCAT. So go to the user page titled User:Joey717 and remove the People from Winnipeg category. Category are not allowed to add on userpages. This is an urgent message. please do that immediately. Thanks. 2001:569:7C07:2600:C084:6CAA:20CB:AAE (talk) 02:38, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Someone beat me to it. Shame really, since I'd edited some other categories related to astronomy, but the user page contains several concatenated articles and I missed the Winnipeg one. Lithopsian (talk) 10:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Daniel Lorraine

If you review drafts, could you please approve that one? Thank you very much. Joey717 ^(talk) 19:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Is that even a thing? A draft is just a (semi-) private article in progress, which will eventually be moved to the main article space and then approved. Or you can go through the articles for creation process, which has a separate approval system. However, you should read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny Lorraine and perhaps reconsider trying to create an article that was only just deleted after discussion. And definitely don't ask me to try and circumvent the results of that discussion by creating an article with a subtly different name. Lithopsian (talk) 10:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

You reverted my edit

What did you mean by 'hardly' when you reverted my edit? 92.17.89.71 (talk) 17:58, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

You told me to talk to you instead of having an edit war? ok.

Ok, so first off, you said that the 1,180 SR estimate for Beetleguese is an "older value" when it's from 2013. The 955 SR estimate is from 2011. Also, you keep changing HR 5171 A back to 1,315 SR when it's most recently estimated as a 1,490 SR red Super giant. I'll say this one last time. Always go with the smallest value of the most recent estimate. That's all JayKayXD (talk) 11:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Content discussion are best on an article talk page, but here is good for now.

The 1,180 R_☉ value is a value derived from a 2009 paper. It didn't actually occur in that paper but was shown in several articles published at that time, essentially cherry-picked since the paper was discussing that the radius varied. The derivation is discussed in Betelgeuse although it could be a bit clearer (or not at all, depending on how important it is considered to be in a historical context). It happens to be repeated in a 2013 book. That is not a primary source: that is, the book does not derive that value. It is most likely copied from Wikipedia, but let's be generous and say it was copied from a web news piece somewhere. Books tend to be secondary or tertiary sources, most useful for determining notability, less so for defining facts. The 2011 paper is the most recent primary source, hence preferred (all other things being equal) to a 2009 publication. Worth noting is a 2016 paper giving a radius of 887±203 R_☉, although it is an adopted value based on somewhat older observations.

"Most recent" isn't the only factor in which values should be given highest visibility in Wikipedia, even amongst primary sources, but it is a very strong factor. Ideally, the most recent source will discuss previous publications, especially to reference any contradictions and differences, then it can be treated as gospel if you like. Where several very recent sources are essentially derived independently, it may be better to headline them all (usually both), but we should be very careful not to do any synthesis such as averaging them, or even claiming that the "real" value lies somewhere between them. Most often they will not even be contradictory, since they will be equivalent within the margins of error (only one standard deviation, and not even taking into account many potential sources of error).

So, applying this to HR 5171. Not simple. The 1,315 R_☉ value is certainly older, and the newer publications do reference it. However, it is discussed in terms of being derived from a somewhat different method rather than being obsolete and incorrect. It is worth noting that there are two publications in 2017, deriving radii of 1,490 R_☉ and 1,575 R_☉ respectively, again using slightly different methods. The larger radius in particular corresponds to a temperature far lower than the observed appearance of the star. All three radii have significant published margins of error: ±260 R_☉, ±540 R_☉, and ±400 R_☉, with the oldest publication being "apparently" the most accurate. However, they are all consistent within their margins of error, and should all be treated as valid measurements, albeit with slightly different equipment and at different wavelengths. Lithopsian (talk) 13:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, since 75% of the time, your the one who reverts my edits, I wanted to see what you had to say about it first before I talked about it on the article talk page.

Alright. I know that the 1,180 SR estimate of Betelegeuse is originally from 2009 but a book that's more recent than the 955 SR estimate says that the 1,180 SR estimate is accurate so I still think Betelguese should be moved up to 1,180. Anyways, I'm going to discuss it in the article talk page to see what other people have to say about it.Another thing, I found sources saying Mu Cephei is 1,650 SR but I don't know if any of these would be considered acceptable. https://www.universetoday.com/103491/seeing-red-hunting-herschels-garnet-star/https://freestarcharts.com/mu-cephei https://www.thoughtco.com/the-largest-star-in-the-universe-3073629 JayKayXD (talk) 01:52, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

You can't make an absolute rule that the most recent publication is the only one that counts, you have to take into account the type and quality of the publication. If I put a value on my blog in 2018, copied from some ancient papyrus scroll, that isn't the best value. Likewise, someone who copies an old Wikipedia page into a book and then publishes it isn't the most reliable reference. An older value, adopted into a newer publication with due consideration and attribution, and preferably peer-reviewed, can (sometimes) be considered "new". An old value, copied blindly from who-knows-where does not make a reliable newer publication of that value. Lithopsian (talk) 14:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

You make a valid point but you didn't answer my question about MU Cephei. Anyways, I said that I found sources saying that Mu Cephei is 1,650 SR but I don't think they're reliable for a Wikipedia article. Especially the last 2.https://www.universetoday.com/103491/seeing-red-hunting-herschels-garnet-star/ https://freestarcharts.com/mu-cephei https://www.thoughtco.com/the-largest-star-in-the-universe-3073629 however, I'm searching for something that would be considered reliable as that estimate obviously had to come from somewhere. It's possible that it was a typo of the 650 SR estimate but I think that's unlikely as I'm sure someone else would've noticed that by now.

I added some info to the μ Cephei (note that MU Cephei is an entirely different star, a variable star) talk page just recently. I suspect this is the origin of the 1,650 number and it isn't a typo. With that origin it is a valid, if somewhat out-dated (2003), value. Also take a look at my comments about the 650 number, it is much more dubious, although in an original-research kind of way: it is right there in the paper, but the reasoning behind it is utterly incorrect. Also even older (2000). Lithopsian (talk) 20:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

If the 650 number is more dubious than 1,650 how come Mu Cephei's wikipedia page and the list of largest known stars page mention the 650 SR estimate but don't mention the 1,650 SR estimate? Would kaler's page be an appropriate ref? JayKayXD (talk) 12:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Nobody seemed to know where the 1,650 number came from. In those circumstances it shouldn't be anywhere in Wikipedia. Kaler has been used as a reference many times, but I feel it should be a last resort. There is a book which is really quite old now, and the online version which is a little more up to date, still probably based on research from ten or more years ago but hard to tell. He also tends to calculate a lot of stuff himself, things that are in the ballpark but mixed and matched from whatever information was out there. A reasonably-recent peer-reviewed journal that actually states a value should always be preferred. However, as the 650 R_☉ value shows, you need to read the paper and see whether they are making a new observation or calculation, blindly copying one from a previous work, perhaps taking an older value and validating it to still be appropriate, grabbing any old number just because they need something and don't much care how accurate (see the current 2,000 R_☉ discussion at VY CMa), or just making assumptions that have been shown to be categorically wrong (eg. 650 'cos μ Cephei must be the same as Betelgeuse). Lithopsian (talk) 13:47, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah. It's ridiculous how people still think that VY Canis Majoris is over 2,000 SR. The best source says that it's 1,420 R_☉. I even saw a source saying it's only 722 R_☉ but i haven't been able to find that one again. Anyways, you said "Kaler has been used as a reference many times, but I feel it should be a last resort" so I assume, you're giving me the green light.

I think 1,260 R_☉ is a far more modern and reliable value than either 650 or 1,650, and thise two should only appear with much explanation in the body of the article for historical context. The Levesque et al. value of 1,420 R_☉ is also fairly modern and fairly reliable although Josselin is slightly newer. Lithopsian (talk) 20:42, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm still going to at least mention the 1,260 SR estimate, don't worry but I think the 1,650 SR is very reliable also or at least way more reliable than the 650 SR estimate. JayKayXD (talk) 00:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

List of star extremes

I notice you haven't checked the list of star extremes page in some time, can you go and see to check if it is accurate. Zapera has put VY CMa as the largest which is debatable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faren29 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Need some help with NGC 136

Noticed NGC 136 is looking rather bare. Can you help me add some stuff to it. AdrianWikiEditor (talk) 03:59, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

OpenID Foundation

Thanks for the time being for reverting OpenID Foundation page to a redirect page. I started splitting OpenID page as it is messy and too long and making the change to OpenID Foundation to be an independent page rather than a redirect was an attempt but the OpenID page got reverted so OpenID Foundation page became redundant. --Sakimura (talk) 18:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Polyamorph. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Prayagraj District, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Polyamorph (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Slip of the finger? Bad timing? Anyway, if you really wanted to unreview it, someone else has now reviewed it again. Looks OK to me, although I have some questions about the article it points to. Lithopsian (talk) 21:12, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Didn't mean to do this, must have been bad timing, sorry, only just noticed. Polyamorph (talk) 14:35, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Featured content

Do you ever have a hankering to buff another star article like Eta Carinae? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes. I need to be in the right frame of mind though, and find the right subject at the right time. I'm sure it will happen one day. Lithopsian (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Enthusiasm plays a major part in this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Anthony Padilla

Hey there. There’s an AfD on Anthony Padilla that could use your participation, as you were involved in the article's redirect. Thanks. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Padilla Sekyaw (talk) 04:42, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

Wanted to drop a more personal note here and just say that I really appreciate your guidance as I start on the Starbox project. I really need guidance from someone who knows their stuff when it comes to stars and you definitely seem to know a few things. :-p Hopeful that we will be able to team up on this! --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:41, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

social media addiction

Thanks for your thoughts on this page. As a very new contributor apart from very old minor edits i would appreciate your review as to its "artistic qualities" as per german wikipedia which is why it is currently a candidate for deletion. Also whether it is in fact neutral. it is my most genuine thorough attempt to be as neutral as possible, which is why I did not put the JAMA quotes to begin with. However they appear to have been necessary to neutralise the article. There are opposing points of view (everyone has bipolar namely) but this is debunked in consensus in Canada and the United States. I note that there has been no edit war engaging this "neutrality for neutralitys sake", and the cognitive biases including "point/counterpoint" and "misleading balance" may come into play here. I really don't want this to occur. I'm very thankful that it so far hasn't. This is why I directly point to the guideline controversy and legal controversy in Australia, and point to the not for profit in Canada who came up with all these controversial "appearing to have been right the whole time" theories. Any thoughts most welcome E.3 (talk) 17:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Hard to know what to say really. This article is well outside my subject area, so I can't really say if it is notable or not. With a time machine, a good way to avoid controversy would have been to expand the relevant sections of social media that already exist (and are somewhat trampled on by the new article and the section shoehorned in to advertise it), and then discuss a split. Social media is a very large article already and there is every chance that it would have been split out and you'd be here. Even without the split thee content would have been there and a redirect for anyone with a specific interest. As it is, there was and still is a serious risk of the article being stamped on, although it has been approved for now. The subject area is new, controversial, and being in the news for a while isn't necessarily mean it needs a Wikipedia article.

So, where to go from here. I suspect it doesn't matter what I say because you'll just charge ahead anyway. You've already translated a two-day-old article into half a dozen other languages, surely the article can't be finished yet? I feel that the proposal for good article review is highly premature - I've never seen an article go from new to good status so quickly, especially one that still has crucial tags across the top. I think I've said it before, but anyway I'll say it now: slow down, get a cut of tea, go away for a week, let people come up with ideas, questions, helpful or unhelpful edits, etc. The article will improve and settle down, or not if it can't stand on its own feet, but it will get where it needs to be. It isn't there today. We have a policy of not biting newbies (I'm not very good at it, but hey-ho), but outside of the article talk page, a few more blunt words could be what you need to hear. You're clearly enthusiastic and knowledgeable on the subject (there are other words, but I'm trying not to bite!) but that isn't always a good thing precisely because you feel that it is one of the most important things in the world and 99.99% of people don't. But what do I know, see where the article goes, but see over a weeks or months timeframe, not hours. For example, a good article review can take weeks to happen if it happens at all - you might wish it had taken longer when it happens ;) Lithopsian (talk) 21:37, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Austral season's greetings

	Austral season's greetings
	Tuck into this! We've made about three of these in the last few days for various festivities. Supermarkets are stuffed with cheap berries. Season's greetings! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:10, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Doomsdayer520. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Turkish occupied Syria, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:49, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Mistake? Click timing error? Or a philosophical objection to the redirect? Lithopsian (talk) 20:40, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm PRehse. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Workplace Health and Safety Directive, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

PRehse (talk) 12:09, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Move Burma National Army

@Lithopsian: Previously there was a whole article on the Burmese Independence Army (which now redirects to Burma National Army) and a whole article on Burma National Army (which Burma Independence Army redirected too). These two articles covered the exactly same topic of the BIA (later renamed the BNA). I previously simply merged and expanded them under the title Burma Independence Army and made Burmese Independence Army and Burma National Army redirect to it. However I keep being reverted. I tried to move the article in the proper way, but cant since Burma Independence Army already exists as a page. What should I do? --Havsjö (talk) 14:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and I put in under Burma Independence Army since the organisations most active period and the focus of the article lay on the BIA --Havsjö (talk) 14:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

The merge might make sense. Although I haven't investigated in detail, there was certainly overlap of the content. However, I have reverted all the edits just to give a clear starting point. It generally makes sense to discuss major merges in advance because of the work involved and the possibility for disagreements, although in this case it might be considered obvious that a merge is necessary. Still, the name of the final merged article seems less obvious. Consider carefully, I don't have strong opinions either way.

What is more definite is that you merged the article into what was previously a redirect. This is known as a cut-and-paste move, renaming an article by copying its contents into a different title. This loses all the history prior to the move which is considered unacceptable, and also makes a bit of a mess in the talk page. Pages should be renamed (moved) properly, which carries over the history and talk contents. Unfortunately, if a redirect already exists at the desired new title and it has been edited since creation (as it has in this case because of the cut'n'paste move and revert) then most users do not have the powers to make the move. Instead, it must be requested at requested moves. This can be done as a pro-forma technical request, but if any opposition is likely then it should be discussed first. Merging does tend to leave a dead-end of history in one article, although it is possible to also merge histories but this is generally not done as it is more confusing than helpful.

I suggest doing this in two very separate steps: a merge of the two overlapping articles; and a proper move/rename. Consider whether either or both should be discussed first. Lithopsian (talk) 15:22, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Directive 89/391/EEC

Why not discuss on the talk page? I'm not communicating via edit comments. Hekerui (talk) 11:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Apparently you are, by repeatedly re-instating the same edits despite reversions by different reviewers. The relevant policy is WP:BRD, talk instead of edit-warring. Starting a discussion after you think you've won the edit war isn't the best way to inspire collaboration. Lithopsian (talk) 13:58, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Where is your talk page comment on the topic? Hekerui (talk) 14:05, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I responded and ask for an answer because your comment doesn't make sense to me. Hekerui (talk) 14:12, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Please respond to my comment at Talk:Workplace Health and Safety Directive. Hekerui (talk) 15:44, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Dominant meaning of "antipodean"

Per this change, it's not clear to me that "relating to a place on the other side of the world" is the dominant meaning of "antipodean". At least on Wikipedia, the dominant meaning, if there is one, seems to be "relating to Australia and New Zealand". Of the links pointing to Antipodean (which you mentioned), it looks like every one of them is directly in reference to Australia and New Zealand. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Its a tricky one. I don't think there is any question about the dominant meaning of the term, just about the best place to send people who are interested in it. Antipodean in the context of most incoming wikilinks (I haven't checked all of the large number) refers in a generic way to "inhabitants of the antipodes", usually meaning those from Australia and New Zealand although potentially elsewhere. However, neither of the country articles really address this terminology, or even mention it. Possibly they could, but that wouldn't make either article a good place to end up when wanting to read about antipodeans generically and neither article would seem better than the other. Antipodes mentions the term specifically in this context, and I recently bolded it for people ending up there through the redirect. A standalone article could address the confusion by describing the dominant meaning so it doesn't have to be a dab page. Some might argue it contravenes WP:DICTDEF, but it seems to me that there is more to the term than simply being an adjectival form of antipodes. Lithopsian (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

It's not actually that many incoming wikilinks - about 15 articles altogether, all of which use it to refer to Australia + New Zealand. (It doesn't take that long to check.) To clarify: when you say "inhabitants of the antipodes", are you talking about "antipodes" as the region around Australia, or the place across the world from the person using the term? Because those are two very different things - often, "antipodean" and "antipodes" are used by Australians to refer to themselves, which is clearly only the first meaning. I should note that in the current wording you put in place for Antipodean (disambiguation), you used both meanings of "antipodes" in different entries, which is... confusing. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Exactly! I don't know which I mean, or which anyone else might mean. It seems that the vast majority of people (and Wikipedia articles) are going to mean Australia and New Zealand, but I don't think it is helpful to redirect to either of those country articles: antipodean is not a synonym for Australia or New Zealand and isn't mentioned in either article, plus it can refer to other people, even generally to things in that region or nearby regions. Antipodes is a good _target for the term, it describes the term in context and in full. A dab page just muddies the waters and makes people wonder why they're there. Lithopsian (talk)

In Antipodean (disambiguation) there is a narrow technical difficulty, entries on a dab page should only have one blue link, which highlights the basic problem with linking Australia or New Zealand at all. My wording can probably be improved, or perhaps there should be more entries in the list instead of multiple links in one entry. The Antipodes Islands probably deserve a mention somewhere if we're picking discrete places, although that will not be what most people are thinking of when they say antipodean. Lithopsian (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

The plot thickens: Antipodes Islands mentions the Antipodean albatross. That should surely be in Antipodean (disambiguation). Lithopsian (talk) 20:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

There's actually quite a few terms (animals, etc.) that start with "antipodean" - you can enter "antipodean" in the search box to see all of them. I'm not sure if any of them belong in a disambiguation page, since I don't believe any of them are referred to as just "antipodeans", but it probably doesn't matter much either way.

You're right that it would be better if there were an article called, say, "Australia and New Zealand", although the article Australasia comes close - and according to that article, the term "Australasia" is sometimes used just for Australia and New Zealand. I would rather see the "Australasia" article used to define the Aus/NZ meaning of "antipodes" than the current "Antipodes" article, since the two meanings of "antipodes" have almost nothing in common - unless you happen to live in the UK or thereabouts. So... what do you think about making Antipodean a disambiguation page again, and making "Australasia" the primary article linked to for both the "Antipodean" and "Antipode" disambiguation? Korny O'Near (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Australasia (as opposed to Australasian?) is a _target that would resolve the problem of which country to redirect to. Is that really where people want to go when they click on antipodean, though? Its somewhere, I suppose. I'm not so sure Antipode itself has a primary topic. Most references to antipode in Wikipedia (not directly linked, obviously) are in the context of antipodes rather than the colloquial antipodean context, although that is arguably incorrect since antipodes is both the singular and plural for this meaning. Lithopsian (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps all three terms - "antipode", "antipodes", and "antipodean" - should each be a disambiguation page? You're right that there's no overwhelming meaning for any one of these terms, and there are enough meanings for each to justify three disambiguation pages. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

A slightly late reply, but this is all going in the right direction. I don't like the idea of a dab page for antipodean, because it is fairly clear what people are interested in when they see that term, forcing them to make further decisions is not very helpful. It is just unfortunate that there isn't a very good _target, but then maybe that indicates that its meaning isn't so obvious after all. I still suspect a standalone article would solve a lot of problems. Antipode is already a dab page, so that's good. Antipodes is a fairly clear primary title, so it wouldn't be good to usurp it for a dab page. Antipodes (disambiguation) is a possibility, since there are other possible _targets for Antipodes, but it is all currently lumped into the Antipode dab page and I don't know if pulling that apart into two lists would be helpful - confusing enough for people already that antipode and antipodes are two different things. Lithopsian (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Just a technical point, probably moot now that Antipodean is a redirect to Australasia. Having Australasia as the primary article for, for example, Antipodean implies that it is the _target of a redirect. Then the dab page would be Antipodean (disambiguation), which should probably be formatted as having a primary topic and some other possibilities. That seems to be where we are now for Antipodean so all is well. It is much less obvious what a primary topic would be for Antipode, with some very specific mathematical definitions as well as all the antipodes links. Lithopsian (talk) 22:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean - Antipodean is not a redirect to Australasia, although maybe it should be. Korny O'Near (talk) 04:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

My mistake. I thought you'd changed this already. Did you change something else to redirect to Australasia? Lithopsian (talk) 14:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I just added links to Australasia to the disambiguation pages Antipode and Antipodean (disambiguation). Having Antipodean redirect to Australasia does seem somewhat reasonable, though. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Inexplicable Behaviour

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing.

Why. You made this edit[12] wrongly stating: "Although Rigel is a variable star, it does not have a separate variable star designation because it has a Bayer designation." Yet when I corrected this text "Rigel itself is classed as an Alpha Cygni (ACYG) type variable star, V*bet Ori.". You now claim; "remove misunderstanding again after it was previously reverted", and [User:|151.230.113.97] claims "remove Simbad-specific codename."

• 1) So your are now actually admitting socking?
• 2) The nomenclature of Rigel in the GVSC is "V*bet Ori", which is why it is listed there.

Even if you doubt the SIMBAD Vizier data, the name appears here[13]

(butting in) that link you just posted says merely "BET ORI". It doesn't give any new name at all. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

You wrote the initial text, I correct it, but you now you claim it is not needed?

Either get consensus, revert your edit, or we'll start investigating clear evidence of disruptive editing. 22:57, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, while we are at it @Arianewiki1: can you please answer/explain about the variability ranges? And also the Webb reference where Webb discusses the Bayer designation? I myself am in two minds whether a "V*" prefix counts as a separate name or not. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:43, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

BET ORI is simply an abbreviation of the Bayer designation, using the official IAU constellation abbreviation and a (usually) three-character Greek-letter abbreviation that is unofficial but quite common in online databases (eg. Simbad, GCVS, and VSX). V* is a Simbad-specific prefix used to ensure that identifiers are unique (eg. Nu Orionis and NU Orionis). For example, Simbad lists R Lyrae as "V* R Lyr" but that is not its variable star designation. Similar prefixes are used for double stars (eg. ** MCA 50 for Albireo) and plain old boring stars (eg. * 67 Ori). The prefixes are not part of any formal designations. Note that the AAVSO page does not include any "V*", only the Bayer abbreviation - in at least two forms, highlighting the non-standard nature of the Greek-letter abbreviations. Lithopsian (talk) 22:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

References

And so it turns personal, as it always does with @Arianewiki1:. Lithopsian (talk) 22:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Utter tosh. You are alone responsible for your own edits. You made the wrong statement that Rigel had no variable star designation, when it does. Instead of accepting that, you deleted the correction claiming it was now irrelevant. This is evidence of WP:DE.

As for: "BET ORI is simply an abbreviation of the Bayer designation, using the official IAU constellation abbreviation" is irrelevant. "Bet Ori" is the GCVS designation. In Kukarkin B.V., "GENERAL CATALOGUE OF VARIABLE STARS", Publ. House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Moscow, 3rd edition. (1969), it says and lists in Table 1. SUMMARY OF VARIABLE STARS NAMES.,"For each constellation the following are shown:

first Argelander designation (e.g., R Cas)

last Argelander designation

first sequential designation (e.g., V335 Cyg)

last sequential designation

all non-standard designations (e.g., Gam Cas)."

Hence "Bet Ori" is the correct variable designation. Your response above looks plausible but is actually wrong, especially towards my only contention regarding its variable star designation. Arianewiki1 (talk) 05:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

What? But it's not a specific variable star designation, its just its Bayer designation. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. I'm afraid I must go back to ignoring User:Arianewiki1. Despite previous recommendation to always engage in discussion, I feel it simply leads to more aggravation on all sides rather than a resolution of any issues relating to article content. I know this will lead to further accusations of violating this policy or that, but so be it. Lithopsian (talk) 14:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Satmar

Yeah... But please have in mind Talk:Satmar too. --תנא קמא (talk) 19:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. Someone else has now reverted the talk page back to a redirect also. Isn't Wikipedia amazing? Lithopsian (talk) 16:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Sure it is. But not all the time... --תנא קמא (talk) 19:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

quasi-star

A quasi-star is predicted to have formed when the core of a large protostar collapses into a black hole during its formation and the outer layers of the star are massive enough to absorb the resulting burst of energy without being blown away (as they are with modern supernovae). Such a star would have to be at least 1,000 solar masses (2.0×10³³ kg). A quasi-star is predicted to have had a maximum lifespan of about 7 million years, after which the core black hole would have grown to about 1,000–10,000 solar masses (2×10³³–2×10³⁴ kg).

Not much point giving inline references on my talk page, but not in the articles you edit. Also, an important word here is "predicted": these objects are entirely hypothetical, with no evidence for their existence. They certainly haven't been detected. So be very careful about how you describe them in any article. Again, references! Anything not referenced is liable to be removed. Lithopsian (talk) 21:47, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Precious anniversary

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)