Talk:History of supernova observation

message: While the following is a very sweet comment, it is quite irrelevant to the subject treated, and belongs in the Guiness Book of World Records instead of here. I have removed it.
"One of the many amateur astronomer looking for supernovae, Caroline Moore, a member of the Puckett Observatory Supernova Search Team, found supernova SN 2008ha late November 2008. At the age of 14 she has now  been declared the youngest person ever to find a supernova."
: How is it irrelevant? This is a history article. The statement is both historical and relevant to supernovae discovery.—RJH (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed part

message: This article was spawned from the main supernova article in order to reduce the size of the latter. It may be considered a specialized sub-component of the higher-level history of astronomy that focuses on supernovae. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: Well, considering this was part of a GA to begin with, it's obviously GA material, but let's go through the criteria anyway.
1. It is well written. pass. Good prose and follows guidlines.
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect: pass. very well cited.
3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect : pass. well explains all supernovae records, contemporary and modern interpretations, and probable remnants.
4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. In this respect:pass. N/A
5. It is stable, pass.
6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. In this respect:pass. Thanatosimii 01:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Actually it was split off from the SN article before the later reached GA status. — RJH (talk) 16:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Nomination

message: I remember years and years ago I saw a documentary on BBC1 about stars.
One bit of it included a painting a chinese man had done in ancient times of a bright star in the sky that scientist believe is the oldest recorded sighting of a supernova.
But I can't find the picture anywhere anymore....
I want to find it for my own personal satisfaction but it'd be cool to put in this article too.
Any ideas, supernova people?Simondrake 20:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese picture. 

message: The apparent magnitude and distance for SN 1006 do not seem to match the values given in the article on that supernova.  Someone should check the sources of these facts.  This article claims a magnitude of -9 and a distance of 4000 light-years, while the SN 1006 article claims -7.5 and 7000 light-years. PSimeon (talk) 19:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing that out. I fixed the value on this page and provided a reference. But unfortunately that doesn't solve the problem of the remainder of the table entries being unreferenced. I've added a tag and I'll see if it gets referenced. If not, then the table may need to be yanked.—RJH (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The table is a translation of a table from the Dutch article. Possibly some references could be taken from there (Bronnen en nadere informatie). Bamse (talk) 05:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The table is not cited on the Dutch article, so that doesn't seem to help.—RJH (talk) 17:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Consistency with other articles

message: Recent news story about Supernova remnant G1.9+0.3:
:http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2008/g19/press_051408.html
—RJH (talk) 20:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discovery of Most Recent Supernova in Our Galaxy 

message: The move is improper, the singular singular deals with all observation Kjaer (talk) 14:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That works for me. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 17:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to History of supernova 'observations'

message: To me, the improperly cited "Some historical supernovae" means this page does not satisfy GA criteria. It think that needs to be addressed, either by citing the table, removing it, or else delisting this page.—RJH (talk) 17:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Assuming good faith is okay in general for an article, but not in the case of a GA rating. Per Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria: "A good article ... provides references to all sources of information". Ergo, this article no longer satisfies the GA criteria. The warning template has been up since February, which is more than enough time to get it cited.—RJH (talk) 13:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I resolved my concern by moving the table to another page (as recommended by Wikipedia:Splitting), where it can be expanded and improved. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 13:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A very reasonable solution.  Kjaer (talk) 18:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No longer GA 

message: I removed the line about SN2008ha being the "least luminous" supernova discovered. While the source DOES state this, it's not clear that they're correct. For example, see Kowalski et al 2008 ApJ 686 749-778, Table 11, which lists dozens of supernova below 18.2 (down to mid 20s even). Of course, they could mean Absolute magnitude, but they're not clear. --Falcorian (talk) 03:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolute magnitude does appear to be what the published papers are claiming. --Falcorian (talk) 22:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Least Luminous Supernova 

message: Would such a subject be better written as a list with wikilinks to primary articles, a normally written section, an independent article or not at all?Trilobitealive (talk) 01:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to work on it, then really it's up to you. But personally, I think a new article may be best. Once it is developed, we can include a summary-style (WP:SS) section in, say, the supernova article. A shorter article can readily be merged into a longer article at a later date.—RJH (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the feedback.Trilobitealive (talk) 00:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Technologies of supernova observation?

message: An object which is believed to be a remnant of supernova SN 1979C has been found 50 million light years away. Perhaps this will be a good fit for this article?
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010/nov/HQ_10-299_CHANDRA.html DavidR2010 (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello David. There's just a couple of minor issues: the use of second-person "our" is somewhat frowned upon per the Manual of Style. Also the word "intriguing" is expressing a personal opinion, which is usually deemed non-encyclopedic unless it is in a quote. Otherwise, although it could probably be trimmed down a little to appear more summary-style, it seems fine to me. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 16:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well This is just quotes I took from the article should I work on summarizing it? DavidR2010 (talk) 17:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  If it is taken directly from the article, there may be an issue of Wikipedia:Copyright violations which can result in the material being removed. It's usually better to reword the content sufficiently to avoid that problem. Sorry this has to be so difficult.—RJH (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Its ok I had concerns about that which is Why I used edit request however if this is the right place for this information I will write a reword here first. DavidR2010 (talk) 17:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Nov. 15, 2010  NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory announced that while viewing the remnant of SuperNova 1979C in the galaxy of M100 they have discovered an object which could be a young black hole. Nasa also noted the possibility this object could be a spinning neutron star producing a wind of high energy particles. DavidR2010 (talk) 19:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you. I inserted the paragraph with some minor tweaks. Hope those are okay. It is linked to the supernova article so that the reader will be able to go there to read more. Thanks again for the addition.—RJH (talk) 22:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  NASA'S Chandra Finds Youngest Nearby Black Hole 

message: : The supernova explosion that formed the Gum Nebula most likely occurred 10,000–20,000 years ago. In 1972, NASA astronomers suggested that inhabitants of the southern hemisphere may have witnessed this explosion and recorded it symbolically. A year later, archaeologist George Michanowsky recalled some incomprehensible ancient markings in Bolivia that were left by Native Americans. The carvings showed four small circles flanked by two larger circles. The smaller circles resemble stellar groupings in the constellations Vela and Carina. One of the larger circles may represent the star Capella. The other circle is located near the position of the supernova remnant, so George Michanowsky suggested this may represent the supernova explosion as witnessed by the indigenous residents.
: The first astronomer to propose the use of supernovae for determining the red shift of a distant galaxy was Olin C. Wilson of Mount Wilson Observatory. In 1939 he noted that the light curves of supernovae are very similar to each other and they also showed a similar spectrum, suggesting that they were nearly identical events.
: By 1988, the process of supernova discovery was beginning to be fully automated. A computer controlled telescope observed hundreds of galaxies each night, with a charge coupled device being used to collect the image and a computer processed the data as it arrived. A configuration such as this discovered its first supernova in 1986. However, a problem with this approach are false-positives from background events, which require an astronomer to vet each candidate. More sophisticated software needed to be developed to reduce the number of false detections.
: In 1938, Zwicky's colleague Walter Baade Baade became the first astronomer to identify a nebula as a supernova remnant when he suggested that the Crab Nebula was the remains of SN 1054. He note that, while it had the appearance of a planetary nebula, the measured velocity of expansion was much too large to belong to that classification.
: Baade first proposed the use of the Type Ia supernova as a secondary distance indicator in 1938. Later, the work of Allan Sandage and Gustav Tammann helped refine the process so that Type Ia supernovae became a type of standard candle for measuring large distances across the cosmos.
: The rate of supernova discovery steadily increased during the twentieth century. In the 1990s, several automated supernova search programs were initiated. The Leuschner Observatory Supernova Search program was began in 1992 at Leuschner Observatory. It was joined the same year by the Berkeley Automated Imaging Telescope program. These were succeeded in 1996 by the Katzman Automatic Imaging Telescope at Lick Observatory, which was primarily used for the Lick Observatory Supernova Search (LOSS). By 2000, the Lick program resulted in the discovery of 96 supernovae, making it the world's most successful Supernova search program.
: The idea that a past supernova could be studied by means of the light echo off the surrounding interstellar medium was made by Zwicky in 1940, then first attempted by Sidney van den Bergh in 1965. Three such light echoes were reported by Armin Rest et al. in 2005, and the emissions allowed the astronomers to categorize the supernova type. Similar echo features have since been detected from SN 1572 and Cassiopeia A.
—RJH (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  The editing seems to have stabilized a bit, so I am going to start moving these into the main article. Hope that's okay.—RJH (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future additions 

message: Exact dating is problematic (the list of dates of unverified observations given here seem overly specific as well, btw) but the B text of the Welsh chronicles lists A star is seen shining with amazing greatness by the whole world for an entry within 30 or so years of AD 645. Another states The rise of a star around 618.  — LlywelynII 10:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Annales Cambriae

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of supernova observation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100408232409/http://www.supernovae.net/sn2008/sn2008ha.html to http://www.supernovae.net/sn2008/sn2008ha.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of supernova observation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718034413/http://deer-pond-observatorie.wetpaint.com/page/The+story+about+SN2008ha?t=anon to http://deer-pond-observatorie.wetpaint.com/page/The+story+about+SN2008ha?t=anon
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: I don’t understand why this paragraph “Although no supernova has been observed in the Milky Way since 1604, it appears that a supernova exploded in the constellation Cassiopeia about 300 years ago, around the year 1667 or 1680. The remnant of this explosion, Cassiopeia A—is heavily obscured by interstellar dust, which is possibly why it did not make a notable appearance. However it can be observed in other parts of the spectrum, and it is currently the brightest radio source beyond our solar system” appears in the 1970-1999 section. What observation/discovery was made in this time period? EighteenFiftyNine (talk) 23:32, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cassiopeia A 

message: I am just wondering what that means. The section in question states:
"These observations are consistent with the appearance of a supernova, and this is believed to be the oldest confirmed record of a supernova event by humankind. SN 185 may have also possibly been recorded in Roman literature, though no records have survived.[3] The gaseous shell RCW 86 is..."
I changed it ["the oldest confirmed record of a supernova event by civilization, but not humankind..."] because I assume many societies have witnessed supernovae throughout humanity's history, so the wording is kind of bad. There's no reason not to posit the infered facticity of prehistoric people's astronomical observations. However, I welcome people countering my edit.
Dudanotak (talk) 08:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  First 'confirmation'