![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 10 May 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to List of largest known stars. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Last time I checked, UY Scuti has a size of 825 SR on here. When was it moved back up to 1708? I heard it was unreliable. Should we lower it back down again? Atlantlc27Lol ( talk) 19:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( non-admin closure) Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 04:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
List of largest stars →
List of largest known stars – This page was recently moved unilaterally, without discussion. Its basis was an 8-year discussion, which is currently obsolete.
The page was
moved to "list of largest known stars" on 2021-09-30 by
Nussun05 (
talk ·
contribs) with the following reason: "We don't know the exact largest stars in the entire universe, the list only consists of known large stars.", and he's right, we don't know all the stars in the Universe, the current title is more accurate.
InTheAstronomy32 (
talk)
21:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Comment: Since all votes until now were 'oppose' (very unfortunately), i will make arguments based on the article titles policy: Most reliable sources describe the topic as "largest known stars, largest stars known to mankind", etc, or at least emphasize the fact that it's just the largest known stars. See some links: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12], hence the title easily passes WP:COMMONAME. It has also a good level of precision, suficient to unambigously define its scope, which is the largest known stars. WP:TITLECHANGES also says that a stable name should not be moved without a good reason, which is the case here. InTheAstronomy32 ( talk) 18:39, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
"Known isn't necessary because it's self-evident."Not really. This would be self-evident in lists where all objects that can be included the list are already known. For example, the list of largest cities does not need to be renamed to " list of largest known cities", because all the cities are already known, making the use of "known" redundant, and the title is already accurate enough for the article. The same applies to the List of Solar System objects by size, although there are unknown Solar System objects, the title is already precise enough and self-evident. The same does not apply to lists of astronomical extremes, for reasons shown in the answer to Praemonitus. InTheAstronomy32 ( talk) 00:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
The reversal was unilateral and undiscussed.but it was unopposed by more than 2 years and nobody reverted it. At this time, the page was constantly patrolled by many users, including an administrator and a page mover, which could move the page whenever they wanted. Furthermore, "List of largest known stars" used to be the title for nine years, from 2005 to 2016. InTheAstronomy32 ( talk) 21:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
I am planning to add a section about the largest stars by angular size, because this would be the best article to include this information. The draft version is at User:InTheAstronomy32/Largest stars by angular diameter. InTheAstronomy32 ( talk) 10:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
IRAS 04509-6922's radius varied too much (1027-2249). Should we remove the star or just that size? Hoanghao314159 ( talk) 13:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
this paper gives 920 solar radii for this star, altough it is a bit outdated (from 2000). Maybe we could add this star? 21 Andromedae ( talk) 18:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 10 May 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to List of largest known stars. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Last time I checked, UY Scuti has a size of 825 SR on here. When was it moved back up to 1708? I heard it was unreliable. Should we lower it back down again? Atlantlc27Lol ( talk) 19:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( non-admin closure) Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 04:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
List of largest stars →
List of largest known stars – This page was recently moved unilaterally, without discussion. Its basis was an 8-year discussion, which is currently obsolete.
The page was
moved to "list of largest known stars" on 2021-09-30 by
Nussun05 (
talk ·
contribs) with the following reason: "We don't know the exact largest stars in the entire universe, the list only consists of known large stars.", and he's right, we don't know all the stars in the Universe, the current title is more accurate.
InTheAstronomy32 (
talk)
21:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Comment: Since all votes until now were 'oppose' (very unfortunately), i will make arguments based on the article titles policy: Most reliable sources describe the topic as "largest known stars, largest stars known to mankind", etc, or at least emphasize the fact that it's just the largest known stars. See some links: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12], hence the title easily passes WP:COMMONAME. It has also a good level of precision, suficient to unambigously define its scope, which is the largest known stars. WP:TITLECHANGES also says that a stable name should not be moved without a good reason, which is the case here. InTheAstronomy32 ( talk) 18:39, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
"Known isn't necessary because it's self-evident."Not really. This would be self-evident in lists where all objects that can be included the list are already known. For example, the list of largest cities does not need to be renamed to " list of largest known cities", because all the cities are already known, making the use of "known" redundant, and the title is already accurate enough for the article. The same applies to the List of Solar System objects by size, although there are unknown Solar System objects, the title is already precise enough and self-evident. The same does not apply to lists of astronomical extremes, for reasons shown in the answer to Praemonitus. InTheAstronomy32 ( talk) 00:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
The reversal was unilateral and undiscussed.but it was unopposed by more than 2 years and nobody reverted it. At this time, the page was constantly patrolled by many users, including an administrator and a page mover, which could move the page whenever they wanted. Furthermore, "List of largest known stars" used to be the title for nine years, from 2005 to 2016. InTheAstronomy32 ( talk) 21:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
I am planning to add a section about the largest stars by angular size, because this would be the best article to include this information. The draft version is at User:InTheAstronomy32/Largest stars by angular diameter. InTheAstronomy32 ( talk) 10:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
IRAS 04509-6922's radius varied too much (1027-2249). Should we remove the star or just that size? Hoanghao314159 ( talk) 13:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
this paper gives 920 solar radii for this star, altough it is a bit outdated (from 2000). Maybe we could add this star? 21 Andromedae ( talk) 18:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)