User talk:Chrisdandrea

Go for it

Separate articles for Hypernovae and SLSNe have been discussed before, but the usage of the terms is so confused and poorly defined, even in supposedly knowledgeable sources, that nobody has done it. Even getting a consistent and reliable definition would be a start - everyone thinks they know what a hypernova is, but when you look closely everyone uses it to mean something slightly different, and that has also evolved over time. We used to have Hypernova about hypernovae, but it was a very non-encyclopaedic article and full of contradictions. I converted it to Superluminous supernova but it inevitably carried over lots of information about hypernovae. Nobody is really happy with it, so if you can improve on things ... just make sure it is well-referenced. Perhaps work in your sandbox so people don't keep reverting something that is half-finished. Lithopsian (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

My primary concern is to separate the two pages and make the SLSN page robust. This came to my attention as my research group issued a press release that was picked up by news sources, and I noticed some introduced the term 'hypernova' into our SLSN story. This surely came from this Wikipedia page. I'm new to editing here, so thank you for referring me to the sandbox ... i didn't know what that was, and that's clearly what I should be doing until I've finished. I'll probably have something finalized in a week w.r.t. these pages and make a large edit then. Thanks! Chrisdandrea (talk) 15:05, 27 February 2018 (UTC)