![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Galactic winds page were merged into Galactic superwind on 1 August 2019. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
This article to completely wrong in so many ways that it needs to be rewritten. The given source of most of this material relies / hinges on just one 1993 source.
The currently title should be immediately changed to a singular 'superwind' NOT 'superwinds'.
List of most massive stars#Relevance of stellar evolution suggest this process is "degassing", which is not the formal astrophysical term. e.g. "It is likely that many have lost tens of solar masses of material in the process of degassing, or in sub-supernova and supernova impostor explosions." (fictional 'sub-supernova' is not either.) I've recently changed this.
Arianewiki1 ( talk) 02:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Now that this article is discussing specifically Galactic superwinds, not superwinds associated with AGB stars, the content of it and the newly-created Galactic winds should probably be merged. Although Galactic wind seems to be the more popular term in recent years, there is more content here, and the article title ought really to be singular. I have left behind the stubbiest of stubs at superwind, but it really has nothing to do with this topic: maybe just a hatnote to avoid confusion. Lithopsian ( talk) 20:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
I wonder if the word "massive", as in "massive" superwind, is the right terminology. How about "strong" instead? Attic Salt ( talk) 23:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Galactic winds page were merged into Galactic superwind on 1 August 2019. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
This article to completely wrong in so many ways that it needs to be rewritten. The given source of most of this material relies / hinges on just one 1993 source.
The currently title should be immediately changed to a singular 'superwind' NOT 'superwinds'.
List of most massive stars#Relevance of stellar evolution suggest this process is "degassing", which is not the formal astrophysical term. e.g. "It is likely that many have lost tens of solar masses of material in the process of degassing, or in sub-supernova and supernova impostor explosions." (fictional 'sub-supernova' is not either.) I've recently changed this.
Arianewiki1 ( talk) 02:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Now that this article is discussing specifically Galactic superwinds, not superwinds associated with AGB stars, the content of it and the newly-created Galactic winds should probably be merged. Although Galactic wind seems to be the more popular term in recent years, there is more content here, and the article title ought really to be singular. I have left behind the stubbiest of stubs at superwind, but it really has nothing to do with this topic: maybe just a hatnote to avoid confusion. Lithopsian ( talk) 20:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
I wonder if the word "massive", as in "massive" superwind, is the right terminology. How about "strong" instead? Attic Salt ( talk) 23:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)