User talk:Lithopsian/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Lithopsian. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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:

${\displaystyle R=3.4}$ astronomical units

${\displaystyle R=3.4}$ AU = ${\displaystyle D=1.107}$ billion km

${\displaystyle =R:796}$ 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)

?? ${\displaystyle R=3.4}$ AU = ${\displaystyle D=1.107}$ 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)

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)

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 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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.