Talk:V399 Carinae

Why is V399 Car a Hypergiant?

@Coffee:@I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc:@Lithopsian:

Sorry for the length here, but I want to get this in the one place.

When I saw this particular edit [1], I immediately knew it was unlikely that this star could be a hypergiant. An A7 Ia-0 is already on unsteady on theoretical grounds.

Yet I really don't understand how you could draw that conclusion, especially with all the weight being placed on Turner's paper of 1975. There are so many common references in the last decade that discount much of this paper. There are nine references with Ia, with two stating Iab. Yet you've cherry picked the only odd value. The other issue is the probability of membership as stated by Baumgardt (2000) suggests real problems saying certainty it is a cluster member.

Looking at both SIMBAD and WEBDA, which duplicate the Spectral type / Luminosity class, finds;

A6Ia (1975AJ.....80..637M),

A9/F0Ia/ab (1975MSS...C01....0H)

A5Ia (1973PASP...85..328M),

F3Iab: (1971PW&SO...1a...1S),

F0Ia (1962MtSOM...4....0B),

F0Ia (1959PASP...71..156W),

F0Ia (1959MtSOM...3....1B,

F0Ia (1958AJ.....63..118A),

F0Ia (1954PASP...66..249B)

None of the are luminosity class 0 or Ia+, required to qualify as a hypergiant.

Also later catalogues like XHIP says A5Iae and SIMBAD says A9/F0Ia/ab (above.)

CLEARLY IT IS NOT A HYPERGIANT

The whole issue with Turner (1975) is based the likely wrong assumption that distance is 3.1 kpc., but SIMBAD quotes for IC 2581 is 2446 pc and 2446pc (2005)[2] (which is quoted in WEBDA). On this alone, the absolute magnitude is -7.3 and NOT -8 (or -8.8). Evans (1975) somehow also assumes MV is 8.55 when at maximum. Considering much of the data is obtained by inaccurate photometry of the day... well.

Of course, I may have missed something, but looking at a dozen or so papers and in the bibliography, i can't see how you've found this conclusion. I have to rely on WP:GF here, and you need to explain your reasoning to solve the problem.

More extraordinary is based on this meager info, you now state; "removed Category:A-type supergiants; added Category:A-type hypergiants using HotCat"[3]. Have you consulted with anyone or gained consensus to do this?

Another example of avoiding consensus is these kinds of edits on Cepheids, where you are moving text around between articles[4] I.e. You said you "Move description of s-Cepheids to article on classical cepheid." Why? You don't explain it at all! Even more confounding you added this in the first place here[5] now you are just doing a location change? What are you doing?)

Note: I starting to see this as yet another patterned example of disruptive editing via WP:RUNAWAY and it clearly is making attempts to misrepresents reliable sources. Reading WP:DISRUPTSIGNS shows all these traits. Your edits with WR 31a, Kappa Pavonis was a prime example,

Worse are these particular contemptuous edits here with newbees [6] or this extraordinary harsh reply "Not what the ref says." [7] Ok it looks pretty harmless, until you realise on the Hypergiant first line it says "A hypergiant (luminosity class 0 or Ia+)" All this guy did was read the page, went to the linked NML Cygni page, saw it was wrong, but Lithopsian just reverted his edit. (Lithopsian should have asked why to help the individual! It's hardly vandalism is it?) Lithopsian has repeatedly done similar things like [8],[9],[10] (when User:97.118.5.154 rightly said "According to Norton's 2000 Star Atlas and Tables of Measurement, Betelgeuse's absolute magnitude is -7.2, classifying it as a red hypergiant.", and [11], [12], [13]

Continue the worrying trend, appears on Talk:Hypergiant#Dispute disputed & Talk:Hypergiant#Need Serious Revisions, with the attitude at anyone who disagrees. As User:Martin Blank says;

" I've run into such things here and there and have been discouraged, but it's still a good thing to make such corrections. You might also be able to help out on something that is bothering me. One part of the article says, "Hypergiants should not be confused with luminous blue variables" while another part says, "Most luminous blue variables are classified as hypergiants." This is at best poorly-written, at worst completely contradictory. Perhaps you can help clarify the sections?"

It shows exactly same reckless contempt regarding editing, and not taking responsibility for ones's edits.

In this series of edits on V399 Carinae it could be easily be construed as deliberate. A tactic, knowing someone has to clean up the mess left behind, while you go on you own merry way doing whatever they please. How Lithopsian found a reference out of +110 that inferring this star was a hypergiant is amazing, but then ignoring all the other evidence available (and not even trying balancing current contrary views) and it looks exactly like avoiding a WP:NPOV. It also just look like gatekeeping.

So Lithopsian might not approve of me, but such editing as exampled on this page is just damaging the whole purpose of improving the encyclopeadic information. Complain as much as Lithopsian likes about me somehow stalking you or this is 'trivial', but when you make unverified edits like this as exampled here, then the changes you are making need more scrutiny. We are supposed to work collaboratively and not act like a bunch of vigilantes.

Unfortuneately Lithopsian has now met an editor for once who knows what they are talking about.

Asking; "Have you completely lost the plot?"[14] Perhaps. But know this. I'm no longer going to be the 'bunny in the headlights' nor under a shoe.

Evidence shows we are past the need for WP:DR. It just wastes time. Sorry. Arianewiki1 (talk) 11:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've just read the Hypergiant page, and am utterly appalled at its poor quality. It all reads like personal theory, and worse, I've already in the first scan counted 41 errors in facts, statements and dead wrong assumptions. The real clue is the vast lack of citations, and those that exist, all mostly dating back to the 1970s when stellar evolution theory was in its infancy. The recent cites oddly relate to other astronomical phenomena, not hypergiants. It first needs to be reduced into half the number of words for a start, remove the contradictions. I think much of the editing has been just narrowed to blind belief where objectivity is being poorly applied. I now honestly think Lithopsian maybe trying to bolster this with examples like V399 Car just to maintain it - explaining all these recent edits, avoiding WP:NPOV issues, and explaining "removed Category:A-type supergiants; added Category:A-type hypergiants using HotCat". Can this page be put under Admin control, so that a neutral editor can survey how the editing processes have been manipulaed? (Note: I've never edited this page.) Thanks Arianewiki1 (talk) 11:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Coffee:@I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc:@Lithopsian: This persistent editor on edits[15] refuses to gain, or try to gain, any consensus on this page, which is against adopted policies. Please intervene with this page, as this this editor is ignoring necessary good faith. All I see is a user who is following an agenda. Arianewiki1 (talk) 21:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Consensus and Deliberately Avoiding Good Faith

@Coffee:@I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc:@Lithopsian:. There is absolutely no consensus for this edit[16], which deliberately avoids WP:GF, and this user continues not to show a WP:NPOV. Considering the considered efforts above and the necessity of Admin control in editing, then just show utter contempt for editors thinking they mightn't be watching by making such kinds of edits anyway, means that there is justifications for sanctions against Lithopsian. [This likely requiring an immediate topic ban for them editing this page.] Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:03, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further evidence find the article saying the absolute magnitude is -8.8 linked to reference^[1]. It comes from Turner (1975), whose "objections" appear in the Section above. I.e. "The whole issue with Turner (1975) is based the likely wrong assumption that distance is 3.1 kpc., but SIMBAD quotes for IC 2581 is 2446 pc and 2446pc (2005)[2] (which is quoted in WEBDA). On this alone, the absolute magnitude is -7.3 and NOT -8 (or -8.8). Evans (1975) somehow also assumes MV is 8.55 when at maximum. Considering much of the data is obtained by inaccurate photometry of the day... well."

Hence, I have removed this value from the Starbox. Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Arianewiki1: I spoke with Lithopsian regarding this matter, and they have refused to speak with you further. In lieu of me fully protecting this article, I request that you take this to WP:ANI and lodge your complaint there. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll do that in a short while. Appreciate you're advice! Arianewiki1 (talk) 20:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Berdnikov, L. N.; Turner, D. G. (1997). "Photoelectric VIc and New Elements for V399 Carinae = HR 4110". Information Bulletin on Variable Stars. 4456: 1. Bibcode:1997IBVS.4456....1B.

[berdnikov-1] Berdnikov, L. N.; Turner, D. G. (1997). "Photoelectric VIc and New Elements for V399 Carinae = HR 4110". Information Bulletin on Variable Stars. 4456: 1. Bibcode:1997IBVS.4456....1B.

[1]