Talk:SN 1572

message: Please include the diameter of the nebula in the statistics box.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.41.193 (talk) 23:58, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to be about 20 light years. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7762939.stm  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Explodingstar (talk • contribs) 10:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

text: The angular diameter as seen from the earth can be calculated from 20 light years and the distance, such as 8,000 light years.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Explodingstar (talk • contribs) 10:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Diameter of the Nebula

message: There seems to be a certain amount of inconsistency, both within Wikipedia and with external sources, as to whether this supernova should be colloquially known as Tycho's Nova or Tycho's Supernova. At the least the current opening sentence is a little confusing in saying "Tycho's Nova was a supernova". -- Solipsist 22:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Tycho's Nova/Supernova

message: The article title is "SN 1572" but the body text begins by calling it "SN 1592" -- which alone is confusing enough, but this is also the year it gives to Wolfgang Schuler's observation, and says that he was "probably" the first to see it (can someone cite a source on that?), even though that's 20 years AFTER Tycho Brahe's observation.  What's going on here? -- Emperne
:It seems all of those 92's should just be 72's and that clears everything up.  I wonder how that would happen, or how it would remain that way while being showcased on the front page. -VJ 18:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be because of this SOB ->  <-  Raul654 19:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 1572 or 1592?

message: the technical stuff needs rewriting in view of paper in science this week 
(The Cassiopeia A Supernova Was of Type IIb; Oliver Krause, Stephan M. Birkmann, Tomonori Usuda, Takashi Hattori, Miwa Goto, George H. Rieke, and Karl A. Misselt (30 May 2008); Science 320 (5880), 1195. [DOI: 10.1126/science.1155788])  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.129.202 (talk) 13:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That article is about Cassiopeia A, not this one (SN 1572). --Jhertel (talk) 23:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Cassiopeia A

message: I am moving this message from my talk page to here so that other editors can discuss and decide what might be useful in the article. The user refers to my revert here and the associated external link is Tycho's Nova Report on UBtheNEWS. 84user (talk) 19:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The criteria would be the policies Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:No original research and the guideline (ie. open to interpretation) Wikipedia:Notability. I think there have been similar cases to this, but no precedent as these tend to be argued on a case by case basis. Examples are: Dogon people#Dogon and Sirius; Sirius#Dogon with a link to The Sirius Mystery; and Zeta Reticuli. It might be that The Urantia Book is a better location. Not many editors may see this discussion here, so I've posted a note at two Wikiprojects that look relevant: Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy and Wikipedia:WikiProject Religious texts. 84user (talk) 00:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

text: (from WikiProject Astronomy) There is no reason to mention the The Urantia Book in this astronomy article. It is not relevant. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tycho's Nova Decision - May 15, 2009 

message: The current text of the article speaks of " the need for more precise astronomical observing instruments".
This need was apparent before 1572. When the telescope was introduced, it was more by luck than judgement and
some time after 1572.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.92.144 (talk) 13:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You are quite right, 188.222.7.234, the two distances should be equal to one another.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.192.176 (talk) 15:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

text: I have modified the article to reflect a more recent estimation of the distance and, at the same time, removed the confusion of having two different distances mentioned. Fueled (talk) 09:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current text 

message: Interesting news story:
: 
Regards, RJH (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tycho's supernova remnant 

message: The section on "X-Ray Observation appears to directly quote, word for word, from this source:
https://books.google.com/books?id=uW4Oq2al8oYC&pg=PA92&lpg=PA92&dq=Cepheus+X-1+supernova&source=bl&ots=YoZLPy_0As&sig=lq2opTvWreWU9kx6-suuUTYGMgY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjtn6yX7aHfAhXDT98KHYShAfo4ChDoATAIegQIBxAB  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.15.255.228 (talk) 12:43, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The book you are referring to is "Tycho Brahe", with stated editor: "By Wikipedians", so the book actually contains text from Wikipedia. 🙂 So the section is not plagiarized. But thanks for the well-intentioned tip. --Jhertel (talk) 14:07, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  X-Ray observation 

message: When clicking the videos on this page, the mini-player does not open. There's a brief flash but then nothing appears. It seems to happen with all videos on the page. If you open the video link directly (e.g. in a new tab), then it is able to play. And this doesn't affect any other pages as far as I can tell. So there seems to be something wrong with the markup on this specific page, but I don't know what. I've tested this on Firefox and Edge. Aminomancer (talk) 07:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Videos fail to play on this page