Talk:List of supernova remnants

No mention of remnant

Why are SN2004dj and SN2005B included in this list? Their articles include no mention of a supernova remnant --Keflavich 16:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I'm takin' them out. They were distant, common events. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 08:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Invisible remnant

I added a link to an invisible supernova remnant discovered in 1998. RX J0852.0-4622--Marcwiki9 04:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed it because of the label at the top about bright remnants. An invisible remnant doesn't seem to meet brightness requirement. Similarly, I did not add SN 2008D because I have not seen mention of it being bright. -- SEWilco (talk) 05:27, 22 May 2008

Champagne Supernova

Hi! This is so fascinating. I just recently read about the Champagne Supernova. Not the song, the actual SUPERNOVA discovered in 2003, named after the song! Will it be added to this list? Also, what really amazes me about supernovas are their size. Some can be many light years long! WOW. Will we be adding a new column for their size? Thanks for all of your consideration. Take care Calypsos (talk) 06:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)Calypsos

Date and Distance columns dont sort properly

They don't sort because of the way the values have been entered. I've fixed the distance values (eg by moving 'approx' to after the values) but how should the date column values be represented to sort sensibly ? Rod57 (talk) 01:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I noticed the same problem. GroveGuy (talk) 03:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Fixed for those that have dates by using Template:Dts and Template:Dtsh. I can't do much for those marked '?' --RexxS (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I've since seen Help:sorting that mentions specifying the sort mode of a column by putting data-sort-type="number" or data-sort-type="date" in the column header. - Rod57 (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

What about sorting the table in reverse order - with most recent SNe on top? It seems to me the better way of listing. -Bobbylon (talk) 07:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

GK Per

I am not sure this cataclysmic variable star (CV) should be included in the list, since it is not a supernova remnant/progenitor. I have been observing it for several years now. -Bobbylon (talk) 08:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Geminga and Cygnus X-1

What about including these two possible SN remnants in this list? Geminga is about 800 ly (250 pc) away, its light reached Earth about 300 000 y ago, while discovered in 1975, and its pulsar has a period of 0.237 s. Cygnus X-1 is about 6 100 +/-400 ly (1 900 +/-100 pc) away, about 5 000 000 y old, discovered in 1964, and the supposed black hole has a period of 0.00127 s. It is however not clear if the BH formed via a SN explosion or through a direct collapse. -Bobbylon (talk) 08:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree, and W44 should be listed too - it's actually briefly discussed in the Supernova remnant entry itself, and has an unusual hybrid character. More here: http://www.space.com/13838-nasa-gamma-ray-targets-blazars-fermi.html

Conjectured peak magnitudes

Seeing that Vela SNR and the Cygnus Loop are both fairly close to us - much closer than most of the more recent ones - it looks strange that their supernovae are listed as having been barely visible from Earth. They're set to magnitude 12 and 7 respectively! Either somebody lost the minus sign in front of those digits or it's contestable if they would count as supernovae at all... ;) Or wait, the figure for those two refers to the apparent magnitude of the SNR as observed today, not the peak strength of the supernova itself? But if that's it, then those figures should be removed; that column in the table is for the peak visibility of the original blast. 83.251.170.27 (talk) 00:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

3C 58

I have noticed that 3C 58 is believed to be the supernova remnant for SN 1181. However, there are entries for both SN 1181 and 3C 58. I realize that the status of 3C 58 has as the SN 1181 remnant has become doubtful. But even so, the two entries end up saying almost exactly the same thing, and that is not helpful. Either the SN 1181 and 3C 58 articles need to become more independent of each other, or only one should appear in this list. (I would advise keeping 3C 58 in this case, since SN 1181 is the supernova and not the remnant; and this is a list of supernova remnants, not of supernovae.)

(I may make an edit in the future on this issue. For now I am still figuring out what is appropriate.) EMS | Talk 00:14, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Barnard's Loop

Barnard's Loop is believed to be from a supernova that happened 2 million years ago. IMO it should be listed here. EMS | Talk 00:14, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Davidedemartin 3.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:34, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorting on the date first seen field...

Unfortunately several factors screw up sorting on this field.

• Simple sorts on fields full of numbers require the field to all contain the same number of digits.
• leading ~ characters screw up sorts.

I am hoping someone with more table smarts can add appropriate hidden sort keys to each of these fields, so that they sort properly.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 22:09, 12 March 2019 (UTC)