Talk:SN 2006gy

message: Note that the images that have appeared recently on the NASA website come from this website and are noncommercial- and educational-use only images per this notice.  These must be used with a fair use tag and appropriate rationale. --Tom (talk - email) 20:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: I've been in contact with the observatory to help clear up their copyright policy.  It ends up that images credited to NASA/CXC (and also NASA/CXC/[name of specific author], i.e. NASA/CXC/M. Weiss), are public domain images that have the same usage restrictions as any standard NASA image.  Their "noncommercial and educational use only" policy is in place because they use a great many images from third parties.  For example, the photo montage that was uploaded has one PD image (here, the illustration) and at least one copyrighted image from the Lick telescope.  The other image credited to UC Berkeley may or may not be copyrighted; I'm clearing that up.--Tom (talk - email) 13:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, it seems that any images with NASA/CXC first in the credit line are PD since they are the works of NASA. --Tom (talk - email) 23:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can't use some images posted recently without fair use claim 

message: The introduction states wrongly that it was first observed by Chandra. It was discovered and first observed by the KAIT telescope, in the optical. The Chandra observations helped rule out one of two hypotheses on the mechanism of this SN. The introduction should be reworded. 24.225.246.6 04:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't a KAIT detection (unusually, KAIT seems to be finding about 2/3 of all supernovas detected now); it was an independent detection.  The Intro properly now credits Quimby et al for the discovery.  Georgewilliamherbert 04:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Does it make sense to only list those observatories with published results which can then be linked to? Perhaps in a 'post-discovery observations' section? Chrislintott 12:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I brought this up because the Swift, Hale, Palomar observations were used by the Ofek et al. paper from Febuary, cited already.  That wasn't the publication which got all the press (they didn't have enough results to strongly rule out alternate explanations other than a pair-production supernova, though they hinted that it was possible), but it was the first publication I can find which hinted at the possibility.  Georgewilliamherbert 17:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The introduction should be as general as possible, with the details in the body.  I think the initial instrument that discovered the supernova should be mentioned in the lead, with further analyses of the additional telescopes (and what they revealed) in the body.  I also feel that the individual scientists who discovered this object, who are now mentioned in the lead, should be moved into the body. --Tom (talk - email) 16:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I object to the latter; asteroid and comet articles seem to generally credit the discoverer in the intro section.  Georgewilliamherbert 17:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough.  However, per the above, let's not go crazy with names in the lead.  Several sentences can summarize the discoveries and conclusions of each scientist in the body. --Tom (talk - email) 17:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not first observed by Chandra 

message: Input sought.  Further perusal of all the sources shows that the total list of observatories used to look at SN 2006gy seriously and in depth is at least:
* Swift Gamma-Ray Burst Mission
* Chandra (listed)
* Lick (listed)
* Keck (listed)
* Hale
* Palomar
* ...and probably several others.
That list is too long to stick in the intro paragraph.  We list several now.  Would it be better to delete all the observatory references?  Move them to the middle somewhere?
Ideas and input requested.  Georgewilliamherbert 01:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does it make sense to only list those observatories with published results which can then be linked to? Perhaps in a 'post-discovery observations' section? Chrislintott 12:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I brought this up because the Swift, Hale, Palomar observations were used by the Ofek et al. paper from Febuary, cited already.  That wasn't the publication which got all the press (they didn't have enough results to strongly rule out alternate explanations other than a pair-production supernova, though they hinted that it was possible), but it was the first publication I can find which hinted at the possibility.  Georgewilliamherbert 17:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The introduction should be as general as possible, with the details in the body.  I think the initial instrument that discovered the supernova should be mentioned in the lead, with further analyses of the additional telescopes (and what they revealed) in the body.  I also feel that the individual scientists who discovered this object, who are now mentioned in the lead, should be moved into the body. --Tom (talk - email) 16:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I object to the latter; asteroid and comet articles seem to generally credit the discoverer in the intro section.  Georgewilliamherbert 17:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough.  However, per the above, let's not go crazy with names in the lead.  Several sentences can summarize the discoveries and conclusions of each scientist in the body. --Tom (talk - email) 17:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How to discuss observations

message: Could someone add Template:Infobox_Supernova to the article per standard convention?  I would, but I'm not familiar enough with the template to confidently input the numbers correctly. --Tom (talk - email) 17:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If nobody else does, I can tonight.  Georgewilliamherbert 17:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox Supernova 

message: It would seem that the French Wikipedia article about SN 2006gy is considerably longer than ours.  If anyone is familiar with French and would like to incorporate that information into this article, please do so.  Thanks. --Tom (talk - email) 17:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or Polish --Tom (talk - email) 17:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They have more about the discovery (I haven't included details from the IAU circulars et al), and some more about the details of the brightness curve and spectrography results.  I'm not sure if they haven't passed from having a general access article to a scientific summary which will go past most readers.  I just skimmed it (Je parle un peu de Francais) and not read the whole thing in detail - my bandwidth is limited today, I have to be away from the computer for a while.  Georgewilliamherbert 17:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevertheless, thanks for your work with this article George. --Tom (talk - email) 17:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  French Wikipedia article 

message: A lot of the explanations for what a pair-instability supernova where had some technical inaccuracies which I've fixed.  
Roadrunner 02:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tweaked a lot of the explanations 

message: The text has: "Although the SN 2006gy supernova is intrinsically about ten times as luminous than SN 1987A" but the light curve shows it to be over 100 times more luminous.
TristramBrelstaff 08:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was over 100 times more luminous than SN 1987a 

message: Pooley, one of the discoverers of SN2006gy, says that if Eta Carinæ exploded in a similar fashion, it would be bright enough that one could read by its light here on Earth nights, and would even be visible during the day time. SN2006gy's Apparent magnitude (m) is 15,[1] so a similar event at Eta Carinæ will have an m of about -7.5.  -7.5 is about five magnitudes dimmer than the full moon, and one can't read at night just from the light of the full moon (at least, I can't, and I'm pretty sure I have an average night vision), so a light source a hundred times dimmer wouldn't allow you to read at night. Nik42 18:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm ... maybe my night vision's worse than I thought, then. Nik42 06:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see color by full moonlight, and read under a thin fog or high cloud layer if it's a full moon.  I can believe the statement as written.  Georgewilliamherbert 02:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Read by night? 

message: This illustration is embarrassingly inaccurate, it's positively ridiculous. Stars don't split into two hemispheres as if they were rigid bodies. Unless someone can explain how exactly the illustration helps to understand the nature of the explosion, or cite a proof that the star did indeed split into two hemispheres, we ought to remove it. Support? Oppose? - ∅ (∅), 09:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, what it looks like is something that's in the process of explosively splitting into two hemispheres. I still say it's a misleading illustration, it doesn't look like axial jets at all. - ∅ (∅), 04:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they were trying to show an explosion at the centre of a structure like this. --LiamE 19:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Have a look at the animations here. --LiamE 20:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NASA illustration