Talk:List of largest stars
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 10 May 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to List of largest known stars. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
MACS J0647.7+7015 LS1 and LS2
According to this article, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2211.13334
MACS J0647.7+7015 LS1 may be 5-32 million L☉ with a temperature of 10,000 kelvin, using the Stefan-Boltzmann Law this results in a size of 746.5-1,888.6 R☉ and MACS J0647.7+7015 LS2 which may be 10-40 million L☉ with a temperature of 12,000 kelvin, using the Stefan-Boltzmann Law this results in a size of 733.1-1,466.3 R☉. Should we add this or ignore this? Orangefanta120 (talk) 19:26, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Could be affected by microlensing of surrounding stars, making them appear far more luminous as stated in page 7. SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 19:08, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- I also saw an estimate of 316,000-1,000,000 L☉ in this paper, I'm assuming this is more reliable. Orangefanta120 (talk) 19:22, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Smaller radius for AH Scorpii
According to Healey et al. 2023 (the same source that provided the 909 R☉ measure for UY Scuti), AH Scorpii is calculated to have a radius of 959 R☉. I believe this is reliable and seems to be a more suitable measure for its spectral class than the 1411 R☉ measure provided. Should I include that radius on the main page? SamHalls2015 (talk) 18:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- If I remember properly, that table uses Gaia distances which are often unreliable in the case of red supergiants. 1411 R☉ used a distance that was derived using masers which is much more accurate. SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 17:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- This smaller radius uses a distance that is potentially unreliable as mentioned above, while the large radius uses a nearly perfect distance. 21 Andromedae (talk) 17:04, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
LGGS J013339.28+303118.8
According to Gaia DR3, LGGS J013339.28+303118.8 is actually a blend of up to 3 stars meaning that (to my knowledge) 1566 R☉ is probably innacurate. Should it be removed now? Infa 65 (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Something else I forgot to mention, a NGC 1313-310 has a similar thing with Gaia DR3 data suggesting it is a blend of 2 stars. Infa 65 (talk) 00:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you are sure that this is the case, feel free to remove. 21 Andromedae (talk) 21:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
V Cygni
According to this article https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0601366, V Cygni has a temperature of 1,880 K and a luminosity of 25,586 L☉, using the Stefan-Boltzmann law it would have a size of 1,507.78058 R☉, should we include this star as the largest star in the Milky Way or not? Orangefanta120 (talk) 07:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Orangefanta120 That temperature seems strangely low, although it may be possible since it's a carbon star but I don't really know much about them. It would be interesting to have the largest known star not being an RSG though.... Infa 65 (talk) 12:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Another star in the same study, V688 Monocerotis was estimated to have a temperature of 1,670 K. Orangefanta120 (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- That source contains multiple outdated luminosities and temperatures for stars. The table of largest stars by angular diameter contains this star, and the angular diameter and distance estimates give a radius of ~750 to 850 R☉. 21 Andromedae (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just noticed it was in the list at 770 R☉. Orangefanta120 (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
The List of largest stars row template has to exit
Surely, it was useful before, but it is now introducing some issues, for example i tried to round some radii of stars using the template, in Visual Editor, but it had some bugs when i edited the template directly, so i would suggest removing the template from this list, but not deleting it given it would broke the edit history. It only has disvantages compared to simply using {{solar radius calculator}} in a normal table, which is a lot more versatile. Also, i also intended to add additional columns such as spectral class, which can't be done due to the template limitation. 21 Andromedae (talk) 01:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would rather fix problems in the template rather than scrap it simply because you encountered difficulty. However, you have been incredibly vague, and thus I cannot assist. I would also note you haven't even edited this page in almost two weeks. Primefac (talk) 14:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)