Talk:V354 Cephei

Mass

The mass of below 4 solar masses seems dubiously low for a Red supergiant, is V354 Cephei closer to an extreme AGB-star rather than a RSG? Please clarify. Nussun05 (talk) 18:25, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The source is just a mass database of crude models. It says 3.61 M_☉ but that doesn't mean it is a very reliable mass. StarHorse seems to produce a lot of low mass estimates for supergiants, it may be heavily weighted towards assuming more common masses. Or it may just be that assuming the Gaia parallax gives a lower luminosity and so it looks like an AGB star. Or not, we don't really know. Lithopsian (talk) 21:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the same case is present for the low mass of KW Sagitarii and Trumpler 27-1? (Though honestly, both stars are too big to be AGBs).PNSMurthy (talk) 23:00, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Case 75

Simbad tells AT Persei is case 75, not V354 Cephei. Which star is Case 75?PNSMurthy (talk) 23:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AT Persei is Case 75, V354 Cephei is [NBM54] 75. Simbad even states that V354 Cep was improperly named Case 75 in Levesque et. al. 2005, so it was just a mistake. Nussun05 (talk) 05:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article, all will be revealed. Lithopsian (talk) 15:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop "fixing" things without understanding them first. The Simbad "unique" nomenclature is not a designation, simply a way to unambiguously refer to a star given a number in a paper. Nobody ever uses this style to refer to the star, so we shouldn't either (it is even described in Simbad as "Origin of the Acronym: S = Created by Simbad, the CDS Database"). Simbad created that unique designation because people have called the star Case 75 and that is ambiguous, more commonly being used for AT Persei. Such ambiguous designations might be OK in the right context, but Simbad can't handle them because it needs to be able to identify every star by a unique designation. Case 75 has been used to refer to V354 Cephei in more than one published paper, including one heavily referenced in the article. Therefore the situation is described in the body of the article to avoid (or at least reduce!) confusion. Lithopsian (talk) 20:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop trying to turn a mistake into facts.

Stop calling V354 Cephei Case 75 just because one paper mistakenly referred to it as Case 75! Wikipedia should have actual facts, not facts based on mistakes, which are not true facts. Nussun05 (talk) 13:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I'm gonna stop reverting edits here, so please do not give me a warn. Nussun05 (talk) 14:32, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We discussed this already, in the previous section of this talk page. You stopped discussing and re-started editing the article, which is really not the best way to go. I'll keep the all my actual discussion about this designation in the previous section to avoid confusion. Lithopsian (talk) 15:22, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]