Talk:List of supernovae

Veil Nebula, Vela remnant

If we're including the Vela remnant, why not the Veil Nebula in Cygnus (~5500 BCE)? Elphion (talk) 21:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Possibly also RX J0852.0-4622 (estimated to have occurred ~1250 CE, overlapping the Vela Supernova Remnant). Elphion (talk) 21:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course, age and distance estimates for both are all over the map; like the Vela remnant, neither has historical witnesses. Elphion (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, it is probably best to leave these in List of supernova remnants, to which I've added a link. I propose deleting the Vela SNR from List of supernovae. Elphion (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed the Vela remnant. Elphion (talk) 20:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

SN 2007bi

We should include SN2007bi -- the largest supernova ever recorded [1] [2] -- in this list. (I would have done so, but I don't have enough information on it to make a complete entry.) HarmonicSphere (talk) 10:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I added an entry for it. The distance and type need revision. "The largest supernova ever recorded" should go in the notes cell, but I couldn't find a source for it. Elphion (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

"apparent magnitude"?

I assume this column in the table is for apparent visual (or perhaps blue) magnitude at maximum light, either observed or estimated, but the heading as it exists is not clear about that. BSVulturis (talk) 20:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

SN 2011B

SN 2011B discovered 2011/01/07.431 by Koichi Itagaki, found in NGC 2655 at R.A. = 08h55m48s.50, Decl. = +78°13'02".7? Also SN 2011A, 2011C and 2011E Newone (talk) 10:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

As you see the first sentence of this article "This is a list of supernovae that are of historical significance." Here is completed list.222.252.111.143 (talk) 16:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. For this reason, I propose removing SN 2009gj and SN 2010cr unless some historical significance is provided. -- Elphion (talk) 02:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Removed. -- Elphion (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

SN 185

Apparent magnitude estimates for SN 185 vary all over the map, from Struthers' wildly optimistic "as much as −8" to Chin and Huang's dismissive "3 or 4". It's hard to know, since the historical Chinese description is so imprecise. The higher value seems unlikely, as the suspected remnant is farther than that of SN 1006; while the lower ones hardly seem consistent with its visibility apparently for several months near the southern horizon. My question is: how should we state this succinctly in the magnitude column without throwing the sorting wildly off? It was previously listed here as "−8?", which of course puts it at the head of the list; but the current "+3 to +4" is probably too pessimistic. I don't see a good succinct solution; any suggestions? -- Elphion (talk) 15:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

In the absence of suggestions, I finally listed it as "−4 (?)" with a footnote. Rationale: it is more generally accepted as a supernova, so it would be fairly bright, but not as bright as SN 1006; but possibly much less bright. An arbitrary solution, but not too misleading. -- Elphion (talk) 19:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

SN 1993J

The note for SN 1993J says "one of the brightest supernovae in the northern sky since 1954". So what event in 1954 that was evidently brighter than SN 1993J, and shouldn't it be listed here? If not, why is 1993J listed? -- Elphion (talk) 07:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

According to the complete list [3], SN 1954A was brighter. I also wonder why 1993J's description text was recently changed to only "one of the brightest", without adding any brighter post-1954 object to the list. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 02:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Forget my second sentence, I overlooked SN 2011fe. Though it only had magnitude 17.2 according to the linked list... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 03:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC) Ah, that's magnitude at discovery, not peak magnitude...--Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

To answer your second question: I agree that either SN 1954A should be added, or 1993J removed. Otherwise it'd be recentism. Also SN 1895B and SN 1937C are missing, which were even brighter, at 8.0 resp. 8.4. However, SN 2011dh's inclusion seems even more dubious/"recentist" to me... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I guess the real question is, what's the criterion for inclusion? Many of these later ones don't look particularly historic. The lede suggests including modern ones "that have been the subject of a scientific paper that contributed to supernova theory", but I imagine most of these could be argued to have contributed to the theory (if only as confirming examples). I propose that we require at least a ref to a paper describing them. -- Elphion (talk) 19:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd expect that almost all (>1000) supernovae have been confirming examples to some theory; that doesn't make them notable IMO. I would say that all supernovae occurring in the Local Group are inherently notable, as well as other unusually bright ones (say, H<10). Beyond that, I'd restrict it "as is" to subjects of significant scientific papers/ notable "firsts". --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me, but I'm not an appropriate judge for which ones are theoretically significant. -- Elphion (talk) 15:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm no expert on that either, but we don't seem to have any entry disputed based on scientific merits anyway AFAICS, so we can just leave those alone for the time being IMO. But SN 1993J and SN 2011dh (as well as 2011fe) are listed just because of their brightness/ distance, which we can judge objectively by their magnitude, e.g. with the threshold I suggested. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The table is even more inconsistent now IMO with the addition of SN 2014J but not the closer SN 2004 dj. If we want to keep 2014J, we have to broaden the criteria I suggested above, e.g. by including all supernovae closer than (say) 15 million light-years. I'll implement this shortly if no-one disagrees; I'd also move the "scientific" discoveries into a separate table for clarity of inclusion criteria. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

SN 386

SN 386 was a supernova, not a regular nova. Its remnant is G11.2-0.3 ref: http://images.nrao.edu/666 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.100.26.36 (talk) 14 January 2012

Thanks; I've added this info to the list -- Elphion (talk) 19:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the reference you added to the distance value broke the sorting function of that column (making it alphabetical; at least for me). If this can't be fixed otherwise, I think just giving the reference in the "Comments" column would be better. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I know from nothing about the sorting functions. I removed the ref from the distance column, since it's already included in the comments column. -- Elphion (talk) 15:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

ASAS-SN-15lh

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35315509 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASAS-SN-15lh

That's the one mentioned here: [4]64.9.218.11 (talk) 14:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Gianmarco Carnevale (talk) 13:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Propose renaming list

I propose we rename this list (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#List naming and Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Titles) from "List of supernovae" to "List of supernovae of historical significance". My main reason is that I think the current name is confusing because it makes it sound like a complete list. This argument suggests the current name is misleading and therefore should be renamed by the first guideline linked above. On the other hand the first guideline also suggests not to be too specific and to avoid certain terms like "famous" which is close in character to the qualification "historically significant". On the whole, I think the current name is too misleading to stand and that the burden of a longer title is justifiable. The proposed new name should also not hinder people finding the list via the search box since the old title would be contained as a prefix in the new title. Further comment is welcomed. If no objections are noted within a week, I shall just do it. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of supernovae. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131105121538/http://mail.tku.edu.tw/einmann/papers/SN185.ps to http://mail.tku.edu.tw/einmann/papers/SN185.ps
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110613215023/http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/22291 to http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/22291

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Unusual event: IPTF14hls

I think this supernova is notable enough (and weird) to be added: IPTF14hls. BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Supernova statistics

I checked several entries (2022, 2021, 2001), and it seems that the table is incorrect - do I miss something here?

For example, for 2022, the table gives total number 19336, type I 1717, type II 381 - the source says - For the year 2022, 21368 supernovae and 58 extragalactic novae were reported. 1732 Type I supernovae were found. 396 Type II supernovae were found was it updated after the numbers were added to the table?

pinging Praemonitus as the only user who I know is actively working on star related articles. Artem.G (talk) 20:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't really keep tabs on this page so I haven't got an opinion. Praemonitus (talk) 21:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)