Talk:SN 2011fe

Infobox

Since another editor is already editing the article, I'll leave this here. Melchoir (talk) 09:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

(removed to prevent category inclusion) Melchoir (talk) 09:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Distance

The Sky & Telescope article and our M101 article say the distance in 23 Mly; but the LBL story says 21 Mly. Can anyone resolve this?--agr (talk) 18:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, looking through the M101 article history, it used to say 23.4 ± 2.2, and a few hours ago, User:Splat changed it to 20.9 ± 1.8 with a new citation. I'm not an expert here, so I can't really comment on how these estimates should be updated. Melchoir (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The first reference cited by this article uses "21 million", so they were presumably getting their numbers from the second reference. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I updated this article's info box with the 21 mly figure and included the new ref from the M101 article. (talk about a timely paper!)--agr (talk) 13:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Title

This article title reflects the unofficial and provisional name used for the SN immediately after its discovery. Its official (IAU) name is SN 2011fe, which should be both the main title as well as the name used throughout the text. I'm reluctant to make such a broad change myself (and indeed, don't know how article titles are edited). It would probably make sense for a search on PTF 11kly to redirect to the SN 2011fe page, and the article could include an explanation for the old name, since people will come onto this article after seeing early news reports that use the PTF designation. --Cloudbait (talk) 21:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Done! For reference: Help:How to move a page, Wikipedia:Moving a page. Melchoir (talk) 22:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Redundancy in "Importance of Type Ia supernovae and SN 2011fe"

Why do we need section Importance of Type Ia supernovae and SN 2011fe to repeat information that is elsewhere? Why not keep it to what is specific to this particular supernova? --Mortense (talk) 08:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Eh? It exlains why this supernova event is important, as it provides the best opportunity so far to study an important phenomenon used in our understanding of the universe, it is entirely relevant to this particular supernova. We cannot assume our readers necessarily understand what a Type 1a is and a good wikipedia article does not rely on wikilinks to explain context so there necessarily is going to be a bit of redundancy in explaining things. ChiZeroOne (talk) 12:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I think there is way too much detail, and it should be much shorter. --Mortense (talk) 12:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with ChiZeroOne. Wikipedia articles are intended for non-specialists and providing context is appropriate here. New supernovae are discovered all the time. The article needs to explain why this one is so important.--agr (talk) 14:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Brightness

The two sources that mention the brightness do not seem to be online (at least I cannot reach them) but a source I did find (http://www.cbat.eps.harvard.edu/lists/Supernovae.html) says this supernova reached a magnitude of 17.2, not 9.9. In light of SN 2014J, which is half the distance from us as 2011fe, 9.9 seemed a bit bright, but I am not an expert. Can anyone comment on this? Johnsillcox (talk) 08:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

"type" or "Type"?

This article refers to "Type Ia" with a capital "T" a number of times, and also to "type Ia" a number of times. It should go with one or the other. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Image

The arrow in the image does not point to the supernova, but to a foreground star See this image for the right location. https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/yNbBEPgkTrjLVW8warZfe4-1200-80.jpg I'm not sure if I'm allowed to change that? MisterNick1967 (talk) 13:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)