Talk:Nova

message: Shouldn't "Nova" lead to a disambiguation page first (from the search bar) rather than giving the option of disambiguation from here? Seems cumbersome.--Lazarus Plus 00:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Old talk

message: Isn't a nova a death of a solar mass star, e.g. our sun will die as a nova? — Hurricane Devon ( Talk ) 22:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not according to this article's definition. The sun article says "In about 5 billion years, the Sun will evolve into a red giant and then a white dwarf, creating a planetary nebula in the process." - mako 00:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: The article says: 
Spectroscopic observation of nova ejecta nebulae has shown that they are enriched in elements such as helium, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, neon, and magnesium.[1] Though it would seem that the contributions of novae to the Galaxy might be large over astronomical time scales, this is not the case; in fact, novae supply only 1/50th the amount of material to the interstellar medium as supernovae do, and only 1/200th that of red giant and supergiant stars.
But the red giant and supergiant articles don't mention it at all.  Shoundn't they? 
Also the article doesn't say what elements are ejected.  Is it just H and He, or does any of the He fuse to make heavier elements? --Djfeldman 14:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  interstellar material 

message: A nova (pl. novae) is a cataclysmic nuclear explosion caused by the accretion of hydrogen onto the surface of a white dwarf star.
Google (define:nova) seems to say that a nova is not the explosion (the event) but rather the star (the object) that explodes.--82.76.37.57 13:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition

message: The magnitude listed for V1280 Scorpii does not agree with the page for that Nova -- which is it, or is this page talking about something else?
-- BillTrost
About ancient novae, I would like to point out two things. 
1. The oracle bone text is NOT from 1400 BC. It is from the late 2nd millennium BC, but we don't know the exact age. And in all probability, it was inscribed after the start of the late Shang dynasty. In that case the earliest possible date is probably somewhere in the interval 1350-1300 BC. Which is well after 1400 BC.
If this object was a nova at all, the problem is then that the object may easily have been a supernova rather than a classical nova. 
And if you ask those few people who can read oracle bone texts, you will find that it is not clear how to read this text.
2. Another ancient nova has been missed completely. Z Camelopardalis was recorded by the Chinese in October-November, 77 BC. My reference for this identification is Nature, 2007, July 19, page 251. Taking into account how nearby Z Camelopardalis is situated, the nova would in all probability had been even brighter than V603 Aquilae was in 1918.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.113.116.38 (talk) 17:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to make a separate article of that list. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 10:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Done! Reason: I want to write a little about different kind of novae, and the list was making the article ugly. And WP:BOLD. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 10:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Nova List

message: If a nova is an explosion, why does the article skip that little detail?  What is a nova like?  The article says how it happens, but skips everything after it begins to happen.  What actually happens during a nova?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.40.210.222 (talk) 22:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article did have section "Development" which described the process; which was blanked in 2008 without anyone noticing (!); and has just now been restored by an alert editor. -84user (talk) 20:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Explosion?

message: Is it really true that more novae are discovered in the Andromeda Galaxy than in the Milky Way (25 vs. 10 per year, according to the article)? I'd expect it would be easier to find them in our own galaxy, if they occur on a similar scale in both galaxies...--Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: My "guess" would be that the dust lanes of the Milky Way obstruct our view of many local Nova while we have a nice outside view of M31. -- Kheider (talk) 14:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Milky Way vs. Andromeda 

message: As of Apr 2010, it seems that the term is still "Fast Nova". -- Kheider (talk) 21:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Fast Nova

message: I made some minor corrections in the article that seemed necessary to me as I was translating it into Portuguese. Additionally, I suggest the English version editors evaluate the need for keeping the section with the title "Bright novae since 1890". The text says nothing and the number doesn't match with the information in other parts of the article. Claudio M Souza (talk) 01:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, and this is after 5 years. WiIl fix. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Useless section

message: I just wanted to look up the comic book hero Nova but instead I got this. I even looked it up and it still went to the same link...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.237.119 (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misunderstanding 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Nova. 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/20100408150756/http://www.supernovae.net/novae.html to http://www.supernovae.net/novae.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) 21:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: This article says (probably) 50 per year (in Milky Way). In List of novae in the Milky Way galaxy it says probably 40 Nova per year, but only 10 observed. In [Supernova] it says probably 3 per century (in the Milky Way).  So 1500 times as common?
Is there a phenomenon that is bigger/ brighter than a nova, yet not a supernova? MBG02 (talk) 04:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Occurrence. Observed.  

message: (See #7 Above, 2009.)  Is a Nova always an explosion?  Can the rapid runaway ignition by fusion just be a “burning”, without “explosion”? MBG02 (talk) 04:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: the 'ignition' is the explosion - if you were somehow able to be in the local vicinity of this phenomenon, you'd be calling it an explosion!  :-)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.26.134 (talk) 01:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explosion? 

message: What's the difference between a nova and a type 1a supernova?67.71.87.215 (talk) 03:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nova vs 1a supernova 

message: Courtesy notification: for the closed move request please see Talk:Novae (fortress)#Requested move 29 June 2020. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 17:28, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: To summarise, since it isn't obvious: it was requested that the article previously at Novae (about the Roman fortress) should be moved to Novae (fortress) so that novae could become a redirect here.  The discussion was mixed, followed by a non-admin closure of "no consensus" (ie. no change and no move).  This was then submitted as a move review where that closure was decisively overturned.  The Roman fortress article is now at Novae (fortress) and novae redirects here.  Lithopsian (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 29 June 2020 

message: 102.167.66.23 (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discuss empowerment of marginalized community as an issue liberation theology should address in Africa today 

message: Number 1:
:• Under Occurrence rate and astrophysical significance, in subsection Subtypes:  Different rates of brightness decline are noted.
:• But in Novae as distance indicators:  "Novae also have roughly the same absolute magnitude 15 days after their peak..."
Number 2:
:• In Occurrence rate and astrophysical significance:  "Astronomers theorize...that most, if not all, novae recur."
:• But in Recurrent novae:  "...it is estimated that as many as a quarter of nova systems experience multiple eruptions."
Can someone with more knowledge and/or research skill than I have please reconcile these and perhaps make appropriate changes to the article? Thanks! — HelpMyUnbelief (talk) 00:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  A couple of apparent inconsistencies... 

message: In the table of recurrent novae, in the column for the time since the last occurrence, does anybody reading this know what the two colors indicate?  Uporządnicki (talk) 17:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recurrent novae table--color coding?