Talk:List of supernova candidates

Astronomy: Astronomical objects Mid‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Type

It would be good if the list of supernova candidates had a column stating the type of supernova (Ia, etc.) they might be expected to become. David Bofinger (talk) 13:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is inferred from the description at the top. Rows with white dwarfs would be expected to become Type Ia; the remainder are core-collapse candidates.—RJH (talk) 15:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2011/12/-image-of-the-day-supernova-emerging-a-rare-view-of-a-red-giant-exploding.html#more — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.100.26.35 (talk) 10:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IK Pegasi will not be a supernova for millions of years. It must evolve off the Main Sequence before the white dwarf can begin accreting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.100.30.246 (talk) 22:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List is mostly in order of distance. Looks like somebody added Rigel to the end of the list without putting it proper location. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.189.238.27 (talk) 23:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KPD 1930+2752 Has no distance information. This should be added. I have found no source on the internet for this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CE35:EE50:97C:73CF:94C8:4589 (talk) 16:56, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could we have an extra column or a separate list for: "Could happen now"?

Or some such. I mean - most of the candidates there are stars that will become supernova soon - but soon means, some time in the next few million years. And most of them couldn't go supernova right now without some changes first.

The ones that could happen now would include Eta Carinae, but would there be any others?

It's for readers who are interested to know about supernova candidates for stars we could see go supernova within our lifetimes. Robert Walker (talk) 12:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Almost any Wolf-Rayet star (possibly only a subset, but we don't know the process well enough to split hairs), several hundred known in our galaxy. Most red supergiants (curiously, we can be fairly sure some of the better known ones like VY CMa have quite a while to live yet), again hundreds of them. Much more likely the next supernova in our galaxy will not be from a star you've heard of, might not even be a naked eye object. Lithopsian (talk) 22:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of supernova candidates. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic

I find another aspect of the table problematic. The distances change units. Okay. Some are really far away. But the units are unclear. The exact distances are unclear. When you click on the table's sort triangle for that column the entries are re-ordered. But it is unclear whether they are actually sorting on the true distance. I looked at the code. I know there is meta-codes that can be used to force table to sort right. I don't see any sign of that.

Let's fix this. (1) use clear units; (2) make sure the table is sorting properly. Geo Swan (talk) 06:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]