Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:54, 22 April 2016

Astronomy: Astronomical objects Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Misplaced Pages.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.

WR 31a Recent Edits by Lithopsian

@Lithopsian: @ScrapIronIV: The recent edits on WR 31a by Lithopsian were not greatly appreciated, being one of the most hostile group of edits I've experienced. Edits should be based on WP:GF, but from your previous unfriendly and uncompromising behaviour on Brightest stars, this current effort could be construed as deliberate provocation.

Misplaced Pages is supposedly based on consensus, and making edits what the Talk page is for! If you are unprepared to do cooperative editing with other editors, you should probably do something else.

Yet you add , saying it is of low-importance, then make the text more confusing and disjointed. What is worst is that you took out five relevant and current references, which connected the HST image and its recent related story, left several sentences uncited and stated opinions not fact. I.e. "It is more commonly referred to as Hen 3-519, as it was known before being listed in the Catalogue of Wolf Rayet stars." According to whom? What catalogue of Wolf-Rayet stars. Hoffliet cataloged both the star and nebula first, hence the title of his 1953 paper "Preliminary Survey of Nebulosities and Associated B-Stars." You do realize Karl G. Henize only saw a B-type star with emission lines in his 1967 catalogue, and this had nothing to do with the later spectral class classifications.

There are also several plainly very obvious mistakes, especially centrally around Hen 3-519 and LBV stars.

1) You now say in the introduction it is a "post-Luminous Blue Variable (LBV)" then under properties say "confirmed LBV." The source actually says; "LBV candidates" WR 31a does not appear on the Luminous blue variable page either. Clearly it is now known as a Wolf-Rayet.

2) He3-519 "On this basis it has been classified as Ofpe/WN9,/..."Then say the same type of spectrum is "WN11", while the textbox now says "WN11h"! You realise the O star designation is the nearest O-type star not WR 31a! "WN11h" is correct. (Do you know what the 'h' means here?)

3) The HST 2016 reference says at least 20 solar masses, but you somehow quote Smith at 45 solar masses. But this source doesn't say this! This mass quoted is the progenitor mass (M_eff), being "Adopted effective initial ZAMS mass (not a measurement) based on single-star evolutionary tracks appropriate for the star’s present-day luminosity. For Galactic objects, uncertainty is dominated by the distance and is hard to quantify." As these stars have very significant mass loss, something like 1 Solar mass per 10,000 years. (explaining the nebula existence.)

4) You removed my statement "Mass of the central star is estimated to be at least 20 times that of the Sun, and it will likely become a supernova type II event in the future.", when I gave Ref 7. This is equally confirmed in Luminous blue variable , where it says; "The latest models of stellar evolution suggest that some single stars with initial masses around 20 times that of the Sun will explode as LBVs as type II-P, type IIb, or type Ib supernovae,", which is under specified reference So why remove this??

5) The uncited text under 'Properties' says "The same type of spectrum is also known as WN11, an extension of the traditional nitrogen sequence to cooler temperatures." Who says this? What cooler temperatures? Wolf-Rayet classification are based on the degree and strengths of certain carbon or nitrogen bright emission lines NOT actually temperature - mostly because their photospheres prevent estimations of surface temperature!! This is why "The almost unique nature of WR 31a and its unusual spectrum make determination of its distance and physical properties very uncertain." (but you uncite this quote too!)

Don't you realise, the measurement of the size, expansion rate and the emissions from the nebulosity in the HST, allows calculation of the object's distance. I.e. "Distance is estimated to be about 9,200 parsecs or 30,000 light-years."? THAT IS WHAT TOALA et. al. (2015) are saying!! The at least 20 solar masses that is quoted, is then based on this distance, as based on the expectant stellar absolute magnitude/luminosity.

Worst, your uncited statement "It is close to AG Carinae, a confirmed LBV that has a WN11 spectrum at visual minimum and is calculated to be at a similar distance.", which you paraphrased from Smith, is an estimation, superseded by the HST image and Toala (2015) if their assumptions are correct.

6) What the hell is a "slash star" I.e. Under Properties "On this basis it has been classified as Ofpe/WN9, a slash star." Based on what and what source?

...and these are only the worst ones.

If really you want to 'fix' other's work, actually get you facts straight, cite sources properly, and actually understand the subject at hand.

Justify these statements properly, or they will be removed under Misplaced Pages adopted policies. Arianewiki1 (talk) 15:05, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@Arianewiki1: I have never touched this article. Please do not involve me in your disputes with other editors. Scr★pIron 16:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm putting back the improved version. I have given up engaging with Arianwiki1 since that author has been repeatedly abusive to me, making demands, chasing down my edits, and simply being difficult where it would be easier to be helpful. Lithopsian (talk) 12:40, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

You are currently avoiding gaining any consensus in your edits. I have pointed out the flaws in your edits, which you have not even bothered to discuss nor attempted to correct. Your accusations here also avoid WP:GF and this now extends to WP:3RR edit warring. Arianewiki1 (talk) 12:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

1. Sana, H.; De Mink, S. E.; De Koter, A.; Langer, N.; Evans, C. J.; Gieles, M.; Gosset, E.; Izzard, R. G.; Le Bouquin, J.- B.; Schneider, F. R. N. (2012). "Binary Interaction Dominates the Evolution of Massive Stars". Science. 337 (6093): 444. arXiv:1207.6397. Bibcode:2012Sci...337..444S. doi:10.1126/science.1223344. PMID 22837522.

• Start-Class Astronomy articles
• Low-importance Astronomy articles
• Start-Class Astronomy articles of Low-importance
• Start-Class Astronomical objects articles
• Pages within the scope of WikiProject Astronomical objects (WP Astronomy Banner)