![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
@ Coffee:@ I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc:@ Lithopsian:
Sorry for the length here, but I want to get this in the one place.
When I saw this particular edit [1], I immediately knew it was unlikely that this star could be a hypergiant. An A7 Ia-0 is already on unsteady on theoretical grounds.
Yet I really don't understand how you could draw that conclusion, especially with all the weight being placed on Turner's paper of 1975. There are so many common references in the last decade that discount much of this paper. There are nine references with Ia, with two stating Iab. Yet you've cherry picked the only odd value. The other issue is the probability of membership as stated by Baumgardt (2000) suggests real problems saying certainty it is a cluster member.
Looking at both SIMBAD and WEBDA, which duplicate the Spectral type / Luminosity class, finds;
A6Ia (1975AJ.....80..637M),
A9/F0Ia/ab (1975MSS...C01....0H)
A5Ia (1973PASP...85..328M),
F3Iab: (1971PW&SO...1a...1S),
F0Ia (1962MtSOM...4....0B),
F0Ia (1959PASP...71..156W),
F0Ia (1959MtSOM...3....1B,
F0Ia (1958AJ.....63..118A),
F0Ia (1954PASP...66..249B)
None of the are luminosity class 0 or Ia+, required to qualify as a hypergiant.
Also later catalogues like XHIP says A5Iae and SIMBAD says A9/F0Ia/ab (above.)
CLEARLY IT IS NOT A HYPERGIANT
The whole issue with Turner (1975) is based the likely wrong assumption that distance is 3.1 kpc., but SIMBAD quotes for IC 2581 is 2446 pc and 2446pc (2005) [2] (which is quoted in WEBDA). On this alone, the absolute magnitude is -7.3 and NOT -8 (or -8.8). Evans (1975) somehow also assumes MV is 8.55 when at maximum. Considering much of the data is obtained by inaccurate photometry of the day... well.
Of course, I may have missed something, but looking at a dozen or so papers and in the bibliography, i can't see how you've found this conclusion. I have to rely on WP:GF here, and you need to explain your reasoning to solve the problem.
More extraordinary is based on this meager info, you now state; "removed Category:A-type supergiants; added Category:A-type hypergiants using HotCat" [3]. Have you consulted with anyone or gained consensus to do this?
Worse are these particular contemptuous edits here with newbees [6] or this extraordinary harsh reply "Not what the ref says." [7] Ok it looks pretty harmless, until you realise on the Hypergiant first line it says "A hypergiant (luminosity class 0 or Ia+)" All this guy did was read the page, went to the linked NML Cygni page, saw it was wrong, but Lithopsian just reverted his edit. ( Lithopsian should have asked why to help the individual! It's hardly vandalism is it?) Lithopsian has repeatedly done similar things like [8], [9], [10] (when User:97.118.5.154 rightly said "According to Norton's 2000 Star Atlas and Tables of Measurement, Betelgeuse's absolute magnitude is -7.2, classifying it as a red hypergiant.", and [11], [12], [13]
Continue the worrying trend, appears on Talk:Hypergiant#Dispute disputed & Talk:Hypergiant#Need Serious Revisions, with the attitude at anyone who disagrees. As User:Martin Blank says;
It shows exactly same reckless contempt regarding editing, and not taking responsibility for ones's edits.
In this series of edits on V399 Carinae it could be easily be construed as deliberate. A tactic, knowing someone has to clean up the mess left behind, while you go on you own merry way doing whatever they please. How Lithopsian found a reference out of +110 that inferring this star was a hypergiant is amazing, but then ignoring all the other evidence available (and not even trying balancing current contrary views) and it looks exactly like avoiding a WP:NPOV. It also just look like gatekeeping.
Unfortuneately Lithopsian has now met an editor for once who knows what they are talking about.
Asking; "Have you completely lost the plot?" [14] Perhaps. But know this. I'm no longer going to be the 'bunny in the headlights' nor under a shoe.
Evidence shows we are past the need for WP:DR. It just wastes time. Sorry. Arianewiki1 ( talk) 11:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Coffee:@ I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc:@ Lithopsian:. There is absolutely no consensus for this edit [16], which deliberately avoids WP:GF, and this user continues not to show a WP:NPOV. Considering the considered efforts above and the necessity of Admin control in editing, then just show utter contempt for editors thinking they mightn't be watching by making such kinds of edits anyway, means that there is justifications for sanctions against Lithopsian. [This likely requiring an immediate topic ban for them editing this page.] Arianewiki1 ( talk) 09:03, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
References
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
@ Coffee:@ I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc:@ Lithopsian:
Sorry for the length here, but I want to get this in the one place.
When I saw this particular edit [1], I immediately knew it was unlikely that this star could be a hypergiant. An A7 Ia-0 is already on unsteady on theoretical grounds.
Yet I really don't understand how you could draw that conclusion, especially with all the weight being placed on Turner's paper of 1975. There are so many common references in the last decade that discount much of this paper. There are nine references with Ia, with two stating Iab. Yet you've cherry picked the only odd value. The other issue is the probability of membership as stated by Baumgardt (2000) suggests real problems saying certainty it is a cluster member.
Looking at both SIMBAD and WEBDA, which duplicate the Spectral type / Luminosity class, finds;
A6Ia (1975AJ.....80..637M),
A9/F0Ia/ab (1975MSS...C01....0H)
A5Ia (1973PASP...85..328M),
F3Iab: (1971PW&SO...1a...1S),
F0Ia (1962MtSOM...4....0B),
F0Ia (1959PASP...71..156W),
F0Ia (1959MtSOM...3....1B,
F0Ia (1958AJ.....63..118A),
F0Ia (1954PASP...66..249B)
None of the are luminosity class 0 or Ia+, required to qualify as a hypergiant.
Also later catalogues like XHIP says A5Iae and SIMBAD says A9/F0Ia/ab (above.)
CLEARLY IT IS NOT A HYPERGIANT
The whole issue with Turner (1975) is based the likely wrong assumption that distance is 3.1 kpc., but SIMBAD quotes for IC 2581 is 2446 pc and 2446pc (2005) [2] (which is quoted in WEBDA). On this alone, the absolute magnitude is -7.3 and NOT -8 (or -8.8). Evans (1975) somehow also assumes MV is 8.55 when at maximum. Considering much of the data is obtained by inaccurate photometry of the day... well.
Of course, I may have missed something, but looking at a dozen or so papers and in the bibliography, i can't see how you've found this conclusion. I have to rely on WP:GF here, and you need to explain your reasoning to solve the problem.
More extraordinary is based on this meager info, you now state; "removed Category:A-type supergiants; added Category:A-type hypergiants using HotCat" [3]. Have you consulted with anyone or gained consensus to do this?
Worse are these particular contemptuous edits here with newbees [6] or this extraordinary harsh reply "Not what the ref says." [7] Ok it looks pretty harmless, until you realise on the Hypergiant first line it says "A hypergiant (luminosity class 0 or Ia+)" All this guy did was read the page, went to the linked NML Cygni page, saw it was wrong, but Lithopsian just reverted his edit. ( Lithopsian should have asked why to help the individual! It's hardly vandalism is it?) Lithopsian has repeatedly done similar things like [8], [9], [10] (when User:97.118.5.154 rightly said "According to Norton's 2000 Star Atlas and Tables of Measurement, Betelgeuse's absolute magnitude is -7.2, classifying it as a red hypergiant.", and [11], [12], [13]
Continue the worrying trend, appears on Talk:Hypergiant#Dispute disputed & Talk:Hypergiant#Need Serious Revisions, with the attitude at anyone who disagrees. As User:Martin Blank says;
It shows exactly same reckless contempt regarding editing, and not taking responsibility for ones's edits.
In this series of edits on V399 Carinae it could be easily be construed as deliberate. A tactic, knowing someone has to clean up the mess left behind, while you go on you own merry way doing whatever they please. How Lithopsian found a reference out of +110 that inferring this star was a hypergiant is amazing, but then ignoring all the other evidence available (and not even trying balancing current contrary views) and it looks exactly like avoiding a WP:NPOV. It also just look like gatekeeping.
Unfortuneately Lithopsian has now met an editor for once who knows what they are talking about.
Asking; "Have you completely lost the plot?" [14] Perhaps. But know this. I'm no longer going to be the 'bunny in the headlights' nor under a shoe.
Evidence shows we are past the need for WP:DR. It just wastes time. Sorry. Arianewiki1 ( talk) 11:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Coffee:@ I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc:@ Lithopsian:. There is absolutely no consensus for this edit [16], which deliberately avoids WP:GF, and this user continues not to show a WP:NPOV. Considering the considered efforts above and the necessity of Admin control in editing, then just show utter contempt for editors thinking they mightn't be watching by making such kinds of edits anyway, means that there is justifications for sanctions against Lithopsian. [This likely requiring an immediate topic ban for them editing this page.] Arianewiki1 ( talk) 09:03, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
References