Talk:List of largest stars/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Video Links

Removed second video link, as the video it links to is a ripoff of the original with a weak attempt at comedy at the end. Methylene 06:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent movie link.C1k3 07:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Radius versus Diameter

Looking over the Solar diameter, I see the measurement is the same as the solar radii for Antares. Diameter is not radius. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.241.214.116 (talk) 08:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

Quite; I am wondering in the table how the Sun's diameter can be specified as "1 Solar Radius" - Pythagoras would have a fit; something is clearly wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.18.1.36 (talk) 10:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

A1 in NGC 3603

This is an ultra massive star, likely the largest on this list, but I did not track down its diameter. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.187.67 (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

See List of most massive stars The Yeti (talk) 02:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Move

Why is this page protected from being renamed ('move') ?

And would not it be better called List of largest stars by diameter ? As just 'largest' is ambiguous (eg mass ?) Further, you can drop 'known', as by definition, we can only list known stars ... we can hardly list the unknown ones ! The Yeti (talk) 02:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I also feel there is a little ambiguity in the article itself. I recently heard news that a new record for the largest star was discovered. I tried looking up largest stars on Wikipedia and came to this article, but it doesn't really mention the important mass/diameter distinction. I found the new record turned out to be for the most massive star, R136 and mentioned in the List of most massive stars. I wish/think there could be maybe a sentence or two comparing the importance and especially how mass and diameter affect each other, or if that's out of place, then maybe a link to which article might explain it. ZeniffMartineau (talk) 14:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed on the ambiguity. I'd support List of largest stars by diameter as the new title. A move can be requested here. mgiganteus1 (talk) 21:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The difference is the largest versus the heaviest. Perhaps this could be called List of most voluminious stars though. 76.66.196.13 (talk) 12:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

"Large" generally refers to size, not mass (a black hole can be very massive without being all that large, ferexample). To the extent that there is an opportunity for confusion, I think the link to the List of most massive stars right at the top solves it pretty well. On the other hand, I agree that "known" is redundant. As for "voluminous": it's a charming word, but my instinct says no. It's not something that leaps to mind, and I don't think it's a standard term of art. If we did use "voluminous", we'd need redirects for more commonly searched terms. Plus (as 76.66.196.13's own comment shows), it's not the easiest word to spell. Xtifr _tälk 20:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Hype

I'm in the process of going through the published data for the stars in this list and it appears that much of the table is effectively big number hype. People seem to have gone through anything on the web. pulled out the biggest number they could find no matter how old or how poorly supported, and thrown it in the list. Some of the information is simply wrong, for example mu Cephei apparently here because of a typo, and now the data has been copied all over the web. I'm gradually editing the table, adding notes to many of the entries and changing data that is clearly wrong or has been supplanted by reliable recent research. Obviously most of the results are subject to a considerable amount of uncertainty to the extent that the order of the table itself is somewhat arbitrary. Lithopsian (talk) 12:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

VY CMa

The quoted reference for this star (Choi et al) gives a preferred temperature of 3,650K and a luminosity of 300,000. That equates to a radius of 1,370. The paper gives a likely luminosity range of 250,000-350,000 which equates to a size range of 1,200-1,500. It additionally refers to earlier works quoting a possible temperature as low as 3,000K, although pointing out the reasons why this is unlikely. Using the lower temperature gives the possibility of a radius as high as 2,200. Being so frequently quoted as the largest star, I understand that people have an emotional attachment to it, but if you want to change the numbers please include a reference source to support them, preferably one that hasn't been superceded. The 1,800-2,100 range is from an older paper that hasn't been in the list of references for nearly two years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lithopsian (talk • contribs) 22:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Stand by for fireworks. I just moved VY CMa to 7th in the list, based on the currently quoted diameter (1420x) from the detail page. The very large estimated ranges previously shown (1200-2200) overlapped with any number of stars and the position could legitimately have been anywhere in the top ten or more stars, so the current position is not fundamentally any different. Lithopsian (talk) 22:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Well that wasn't so bad. Interesting how quickly people have started reporting NML Cygni as the largest star, although to be honest nothing has really changed and there are still half a dozen well known red hypergiants essentially the same size within the margins of error. I just added one completely new to the list, W26 in Westerlund 1. It has a very large reported size, even at the smaller end of expectations, but please don't start jumping up and down about it being the largest. This star simply hasn't been studied in detail to determine its diameter, the temperature is poorly defined and probably variable, the distance is still subject to debate, and the luminosity estimates are uncertain because it has some very non-standard properties. Definitely an extreme red star though and needs to be on the list despite the uncertainties. Lithopsian (talk) 14:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Cull

There is a lengthy list of stars in this article that can in no way be considered the largest, not close, not ever, not by any margin of error. They fall below the line marked "well-known stars are listed for the purpose of comparison". I propose that this line be moved to perhaps 1,000 since there are certainly stars of that size not listed, and that stars which are not household names or exceptional in some other way (for example the most massive or a prototype of some class) should be removed. This would mean perhaps three quarters of the list below that level would be deleted. For example, what is Eta piscium doing in the list, or 11 Ursae minoris or Xi Aquilae? Lithopsian (talk) 14:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I have ruthlessly pruned the "for comparison" section of this list. It made no sense for it to be several times the length of the actual largest known stars section. I feel that stars in the comparison section should be 1) Well known. If it doesn't have a common name or a Bayer Designation that's not a good start. 2) Noteworthy for some reason - and if it's the same reason for more than one or two of them then the redundant entries can be removed. 3) The comparison list shouldn't be more than half the length of the main. M0ffx (talk) 16:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

RSGs in four Scutum clusters

I've found out info about four star clusters in the constellation Scutum, namely RSGC1, Stephenson 2, RSGC3, and Alicante 8 contains lots of red supergiants, probably a few hundreds or more. Should we include it in this article, or let someone measure the stars' sizes? Johndric Valdez (talk) 07:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Cutoff Point

I don't understand why the list still goes down to R Lep at 500 R. The above aforementioned itself states "44 red supergiants are larger than 700 R". Obviously those 44 are not in the list, making the table inaccurate. Plus, those below the 700 R must be removed; it's nonsense to put them in the table.

I suggest to move the cutoff point well to 700 R or larger. Comments please. SkyFlubbler (talk) 09:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Values for sizes, in particular VV Cep

A general comment on the specific sizes listed - in many ways, specific ranking is an exercise in frustration, defining how many angels dance on the head of a pin. The exact size of any given giant star has huge error margins, due to various factors listed at the top of the article including asymmetry, precise boundary of atmosphere, imprecise knowledge of distance to star, and imprecise optics.

Whatever values are listed here, please ensure they are precisely the values you find in the reference. Averaging between multiple sources introduces noise, making it more difficult to determine where the value came from. In the specific case of VV Cep, which has seen recent activity, the two cited values come from two different measurements - 1,900, published 35 years ago, and 1,050 published in 2008. The original measurement was a ground-based measurement, the more recent one derives from Hubble observations. That usually suggests a more precise measurement. Either way, the only values we should list are the ones specified in the articles - either one article is to be believed or the other. Coming up with a third value obfuscates the original data.

Remember, what Wikipedia is supposed to be is a summary with pointers to where the information came from, not a primary source itself. Any alteration of data from the original citations increases the difficulty of tracking down what actually is known. Regards, Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 05:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

This issue is already on the WT:AST, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy#List Break-up. That is one of my regards. This Asyulus is already making a huge misconceptualization. One must need to fix this guy.

Pinging at Tarlneustaedter- I know you're the real expert here. Can you fix those suspicious values? Plus, give more details on the discussion. SkyFlubbler (talk with me :-D) 10:31, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry SkyFlubbler, I'm not a particular expert in the subject matter. I'm a firmware engineer, my last formal astronomy coursework was in the 1970s. While I do follow the literature, allowing me to spot cases that are blatantly off-kilter, my role on Wikipedia is primarily sanity-checking references against what I see in the articles. I don't have access to the kind of research library which would allow me to carry out a comprehensive update as you suggest. Regards, Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 23:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Distance from Earth

I think it might also be useful to add the the chart a listing of the distance from Earth in light-years for each star. 147.145.40.44 22:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Also spectral class should be added.CFLeon (talk) 20:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Distance from earth is often not known and measured in parallax instead of light years. Often from one side of the sun's orbit to the other. Confirming being within the Milky Way would be helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:AF40:3149:C4F6:8738:5F89:D0F (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

All the stars listed are in either the Milky Way or the LMC. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with List of largest stars 2

This appears to be the same information, with one new star added to the top of the list. I could be wrong, I didn't do a line-by-line comparison, but nevertheless they cover exactly the same topic. Gronk Oz (talk) 10:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

You're not wrong. It is clearly simple vandalism. Might I suggest a speedy delete? Lithopsian (talk) 10:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I curated it myself. It is now nominated for speedy deletion. Lithopsian (talk) 11:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Sometimes I give a bit too much benefit of the doubt... --Gronk Oz (talk) 11:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Please move List of largest known stars to List of largest stars, per concensus

"Known" should be removed from the article title per this WP:AST discussion. Please discuss there, if needed. Thanks!   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  15:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The page was protected against moves. I have moved it for you. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:49, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2016

89.156.137.161 (talk) 00:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

• Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. We aren't going to play find the differences. Copying the entire article is not an edit request. Please be specific with the changes you want to make. --Majora (talk) 00:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Lead image

The lead image with NML Cygni and UY Scuti is the same as the POTD lead image without them, just with the last 3 stars re-named and re-textured. Obviously, since this is a size comparison, this sort of "update" is not an update at all-- it doesn't make the image more current, just inaccurate. What tipped me off that something was wrong was that the "update" was done by Jcpag2012 (incorrectly sourced as "own worK"), an editor who caused a lot of trouble across astronomy-related articles and was eventually indef blocked for WP:COMPETENCE. Because of this, I am changing it back to the POTD. A2soup (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Sirius A

67.55.19.24 (talk) 03:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

EV Carinae

If Lithopsian's numbers are correct, this is the "monster of all monsters". However, I hope someone will get a reference for this. It just appeared like a bubble on top of UY Scuti.

The reference 2 has no data about the radius. So, I am calling those who watch this article and other users to clarify and find data concerning this star (esp. Lithopsian, you put that star on the list). I will tell this to the Wikiproject Astronomy talk. SkyFlubbler ^(talk) 06:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, so EV Carinae. A star that is according to SIMBAD, a red supergiant. That is virtually all the data about this star. Any thoughts? SkyFlubbler ^(talk) 06:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and undid the edit for now. As far as I could tell from looking over its tables, the referenced paper didn't even mention EV Carinae. I think the addition of a new largest star absent any new discoveries or measurements requires some discussion in any case. @Lithopsian:, can you explain your reason for adding the star? A2soup (talk) 07:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

SkyFubbler pointed out to me that EV Carinae is, in fact, in the ref on p. 280, NR 231. Still, I don't see a clear indication of the radius and think we definitely need discussion before adding it. A2soup (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

By the way, I created a draft, for now. It is not yet a formal article: User:SkyFlubbler/EV Carinae. SkyFlubbler ^(talk) 06:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Mind moving it to DRAFT-space? Then we could add tags for draft articles to it -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 10:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

There seems to be an article about this star here, but the server appears to be down, so I can't retrieve it. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 13:52, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that every editor that adds to this list should be as specific as possible on the reference, at least with a required |page=, |at=, and/or |quote= parameter, so that it may be easily verified by readers or editors. This "new" star's reference (from a 1988 source) is highly lacking and I agree with its removal as-is.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:41, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I've added some references to SkyFlubbler's draft. I was somewhat surprised that there was no Wiki-article for this star. It is clearly one of the most luminous known red supergiants, and hence one of the largest, as well as being a large amplitude and reasonably bright variable star. Detailed research specific to this particular star is somewhat lacking, and the basic physical data are highly uncertain. Probably no more uncertain than the other stars near the top of the list, but very obvious from the conflicting published values. You can see some basic data here. This refers back to the reference I originally included in the list, but it was quite difficult to deciper. The newer paper actually derives an even higher luminosity. I've now found this paper which derives values more in line with expectations for this type of star. An article would be good, then it becomes easy to link into this list. Lithopsian (talk) 20:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

It looks like those papers give luminosity, temperature, mass loss, and other values, but I don't see radius in either of them. Is the calculation to derive radius from this data so straightforward that it doesn't run afoul of WP:OR? Because I would imagine that if it was that straightforward, it would not be hard to find a reference giving the radius. Or is there a reason that the papers refrain from deriving a radius estimate? A2soup (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The papers don't quote radii directly, which is unfortunate for our purposes. It is a trivial calculation to derive a radius from luminosity and temperature, although there are at least half a dozen ways to define the radius of a star. In most cases the various values are all but identical, but for a red supergiant they can be significantly different. Different papers derive different types of stellar radius depending on the type of observations or models involved, and the list here doesn't really make any attempt to distinguish them. In some cases the values quoted in the list are explicitly not comparable, for example at optical depth 1 vs 2/3. NML Cygni was a previous example that got catapulted to the top of the list based on papers that didn't explicitly published a value for the radius, only for luminosity and temperature and those with a huge possible range. UY Scuti actually has a recent paper that explicitly derives the radius, convenient for WP:VNT, but ultimately just another single source with a margin of error larger than the difference between it and a dozen other stars. Lithopsian (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think Lithopsian's calculations fall inside WP:OR. You need data in order to derive it. Like when 2+3 you get 5 even though not stated by the reference. EV Car must be certainly included, because the data about it states that it was a large star, though with an unknown size. SkyFlubbler ^(talk) 06:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Hm, thanks for the info, that's very helpful. It seems to me that in the special case of red supergiants, the determination of the star's radius is a non-trivial affair, not because the calculations are questionable, but because the most appropriate model is not well-established and may vary by star. Based on this, I think it is reasonable to suggest that:

1. in the interest of WP:OR and WP:VNT, we only give the radii of red supergiants in cases where an explicit derivation has passed peer review (for the red supergiants that are doubtless very large but do not have published radii, we could add a note like: "Red supergiants x, y, and z are likely among the largest stars, but their radii have not yet been adequately determined.),
2. give the type of stellar radius in the "Notes" column for each red supergiant, and
3. where there are multiple equally-valid published values for radius (red supergiant or not), we list them all in bold (with ±error?) with a ref directly on each number.

What do people think of these suggestions? A2soup (talk) 06:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, the draft of mine has been accepted, at EV Carinae. SkyFlubbler ^(talk) 07:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Should I include it? Because no consensus has been made so far. SkyFlubbler ^(talk) 07:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Three straight days had passed without any response. To clarify my point, I've jot down a few details:

If we observe the available data we have for EV Car, based on the paper given by Lithopsian:

Spectral type: M4Ia, so a red supergiant Temperature: 2,930 K, consistent with spectral type Luminosity ratio L/L_Sun: 5.74, that is, 550,000 times brighter than the Sun

These values are high compared to other supergiants. From what I've heard, the size of a star is proportional to its luminosity and inversely to its temperature. The Rossland radius of these types of stars are confusing, either 1 or 2/3. But the reference is clearly stating EV Car is a very luminous, cool supergiant that should be of unprecedented size. But the number of 2,880 is too high for me, since the Hayashi limit states 1500-2000 solar radii based on the Milky Way metallicity.

EV Car's size must be defined as soon as possible, since tracing the size of this star is very tricky. SkyFlubbler ^(talk) 14:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it would be nice to define EV Carinae's size ASAP (as well as that of NML Cygni and other red supergiants without published radii), but we just can't move faster than the literature on this. We have to wait until a radius is published in a reliable source before the star can be added to the list proper or have a radius listed. As frustrating as it may be, Wikipedia is a recorder, not a generator, of knowledge, and scientific knowledge is incomplete. The radii of red supergiants is a tricky question, especially when we are dealing with highly unusual super-large stars. Since these stars are poorly understood, their radius is not at all straightforward to calculate as with main-sequence stars (Lithopsian, do you agree?), so I don't think it's responsible for us to independently derive radii and rank the stars here. It's frustrating since we know they are very, very large, but I think verifiability, not truth is the order of the day. I agree that more input would be very helpful *cough* anyone watching this page *cough* A2soup (talk) 14:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Two things worry me here: 1) The multiple different definitions of radius e.g. corresponding to a particular optical depth at a particular wavelength. That's problematic for all entries on this list, which are not strictly comparable, but I suppose EV Carinae is no different to the others in that sense. 2) The oversimplification of calculating the radius from the temperature and luminosity. This is particularly problematic for cool (red) stars, which are far from being black bodies, so the Steffan-Boltzmann law is at best an approximation. In addition, the luminosity often has a huge error bar (usually due to distance uncertainty), which is not always obviously stated in the source.

I think the best solution is to adopt A2soup's suggestion to say something like 'the radius is expected to be very large, based on the temperature and luminosity, but has not yet been accurately determined' in the individual articles and omit such stars from this list until a peer-reviewed value is published. Modest Genius ^talk 13:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

You've got this seriously wrong. This is not picking some random temperature and assuming that it can be related to blackbody output. The definition of effective temperature is the temperature at which a blackbody would emit as much radiation as the star. It is precisely the temperature which can be multiplied by the radius (squared, to the fourth power, etc.) to get the bolometric luminosity. There are no assumptions and no approximations. It may differ from the "actual" temperature, to the extent that such a thing can be defined or measured, but almost all published literature quotes the effective temperature, and even models of stellar atmospheres work with it because it is more meaningful than other definitions of temperature. It is true that this "temperature radius" may not be exactly equal to a different definition of radius based on density or opacity, but it is no less valid than those definitions, in fact it is far less arbitrary. Definitions such as an the radius at opacity 2/3 are chosen to match as closely as possible in the case of stars with tenuous atmospheres. You should read Levesque 2005 if you have any doubts at all about this (see page 982 in particular), it isn't just me making it up. And you (ie. Wikipedia) can quote her on that :) Lithopsian (talk) 14:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I am well aware of the definition of effective temperature, although I haven't read that particular source. Using T_eff to derive a radius is nevertheless an approximation, to one particular definition of radius. That approximation becomes more problematic at lower temperatures because the concept of radius becomes more fuzzy and more heavily wavelength dependent. The models used to derive T_eff are also less accurate and less well constrained for non-dwarf stars, particularly various forms of red giant and red supergiant (which happen to top this list), whose evolutionary status is not clearly and unambiguously understood. Different models and assumptions of evolutionary stage will give different values of T_eff and thus different radii, in a non-linear fashion. I didn't say the method was wrong, just that it is an oversimplification. I agree that these issues do not apply solely to EV Car, but I do think we should be clear on which values are taken from the peer-reviewed literature, and which have been calculated by Wikipedia editors. Modest Genius ^talk 11:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with this and suggest that we use an asterisk in the table with a note that reads something like "Radius not published; calculated from published [parameter x] and [parameter y]". A2soup (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

That would solve my concern about maintainability. Although I'd suggest a footnote rather than an asterisk, so the particular parameters published can be cited. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The issue of (in-)accuracy is entirely relevant, but there is no problem that applies to EV Car more than to any other star on the list. How do you think the radius of UY Sct was calculated? From the luminosity and temperature, of course. The luminosity was actually calculated from SED fitting, which is now becoming very reliable, and an assumption of the distance, which is far from reliable. In the case of UY Sct, the luminosity is particularly unreliable because the SED fitting was based on a variety of photometry with different instruments at different times for a star that is known to be variable to a significant degree. It is almost certainly the case that the only reason UY Sct, or any other star that happens to be at the top of this list on a particular day, is there entirely because the errors involved in its calculation randomly happened to all line up the same way. There are sound reasons to think that VY CMa, for example, is a more extreme object and hence likely a bigger object. I'd put money on the next paper to study UY Sct coming up with a significantly different radius, 99% likely to be smaller. Try and get that across in the article by all means, but don't use it as an excuse to cherry-pick. Lithopsian (talk) 14:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that to avoid WP:OR, we need to find a publication that actually states a radius. We're a tertiary source - a librarian with limited knowledge of the subject has to be capable of maintaining the article. If someone changes the size without explanation, someone without your expertise has to be able to challenge the change. That only works if the referenced citation actually states what is being listed in the article. A footnote describing what you say above (including citations as to the meaning of the various pieces and formulae) might go a ways towards making the entry maintainable, but a standalone entry with a radius not published elsewhere is a maintenance problem. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 16:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

After reading Modest Genius and Lithopsian's remarks, and adding to Tarl.Neustaedter's, I would be ok with identifying the current column on the page as "published radius", and have an additional column "simplified calculation" (or similar), with a clear and detailed note describing the steps of that calculation in enough detail for someone to reproduce it (references for each value used would be required; hopefully they'd all be in the same paper), and applying that to each star. By default, I think the list should be sorted by published radius, but the reader can then choose.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

For reliability purposes, you could add a section listing the largest stars that have directly measured angular sizes. For example, stars from the CHARM2 catalogue. Praemonitus (talk) 00:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Now EV Carinae is 1,168 Rsuns R_☉, it has a temperature approximately 3,574 K, a luminosity approximately 200,000 L_☉ ! Space Infinite (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2016 (UTC) !

VX Sagittarii

If VX Sgr estimate would be 1350-1940, It might as well be placed above WOH G64 because 1350-1940 is 1645 (2,290,965,180 Km) and WOH G64 is 1540 (2,144,733,360 Km). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.192.212.179 (talk) 10:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Another tricky one. The Lockwood and Wing reference is old and there are certainly better models and calibrations available today, but I can't find anybody who has taken the trouble to observe over a full range of variations (7.5 magnitudes in the visual!) and calculation the variation in the physical parameters.

However, it is not valid to just take an average of the maximum and minimum radii. That would be original research. Find a number that is quoted in a reliable reference, or at the very least can be unambiguously and trivially calculated (eg. by changing the units).

In this case, an average may not be the appropriate "single number" to use even if you could find a source for it, since these types of stars are often observed near maximum and then physical data calculated for that one point in time. For example, see Mauron & Josselin, the photometry for VX Sgr is very close to maximum, giving a relatively luminous, hot, and small result. The same is true for UY Scuti, calculated to be 1,708 solar radii from photometry near maximum light, but almost certainly different at other times. And the radius corresponding to the higher temperature would be 1,350 R_☉, and the lower would be 1,940 R_☉. THE INFINITE SPACE (^Discussion | _Contribs | ^dgaf) 20:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC) !

1,350 - 1,940 is not 1,645. You made that number up. No matter what your basis was, if it isn't supported by a reliable reference then it can't go in Wikipedia. This list lacks any defined criteria for working with actual variable radii, or even with statistical error ranges to be honest, but that isn't an excuse for defining your own radius. Lithopsian (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

And in general, when a range, use the small end of the range to sort, not the high end or some middle range. THE INFINITE SPACE (^Discussion | _Contribs | ^dgaf) 20:44, 19 June 2016 (UTC) !

So, VX Sagittarii is smaller than WOH G64 (2,144,733,360 — 2,409,343,320 km) and AH Scorpii (1,965,077,124 km) with 1,350 R_☉ (1,880,123,400 km) ! And It is the 9th largest star ! THE INFINITE SPACE (^Discussion | _Contribs | ^dgaf) 18:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC) !

Intervals of size.

I suggest that if you see the stellar intervals of size, just get the median size of stars.Julliene mae (talk) 13:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Not going to happen. We have no way of weighting the ranges given. Some of them are from different authors, obtained by different techniques. They are often "one or the other", not "somewhere between the two". The article should quote the sources and nothing more. Lithopsian (talk) 19:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

NML Cygni

If NML Cygni's estimate would be 1642-2775, It might as well be placed above UY Scuti since VV Cephei A surpassed VY Canis Majoris by also using 1050-1900 instead of only one estimate. VV Cephei A was higher than VY CMa because 1050-1900 is 1475 so NML Cygni would be larger than UY Scuti because 1642-2775 is 2208.5 (3,075,742,614 Km) and UY Scuti is 1708 (2,378,704,272 Km). (posted by V255 Canis Majoris)

1050 - 1900 is not 1475. These are independent calculations by different authors. One of them is wrong, and the other is ... well, less wrong. The 1090 figure is actually ancient and should probably be dropped, but people do so like their big numbers. Lithopsian (talk) 20:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

But NML Cygni is smaller than Mu Cephei (1.753 billion km) and UY Scuti (2.38 billion km) with 1,183 solar radii now (1.646 billion km). (posted by 77.192.212.179)

@V255 Canis Majoris. Even 1,642 - 2,775 R_☉ is not 2,208.5 R_☉. You can't take an average of two unrelated numbers ! 1,642 and 2,775 are two independent calculations without error ranges. We have no basis for averaging them or inventing a statistical error range, and even if we did have data for weighting them and performing statistical manipulation, that isn't Wikipedia's job.

Don't you think that NML cygni's radius should be listed as 2,212.5 ± 562.5 solar radii? Cause UY Scuti's is listed as 1,708 ± 192 R_☉ and not 1,516-1,900 R_☉. Absolutely not. Nobody has ever published a (meaninglessly precise) number 2,212.5.

And even WORSE from the NML Cygni's article, is that there is no reference, nor is it cited in NML Cyg's starbox. Anyone causally reading the starbox has no idea what "1,642 (– 2,775)(2,208.5?) R_☉" actually means ! THE INFINITE SPACE (^Discussion | _Contribs | ^dgaf) 10:41, 20 August 2016 (UTC) !

Timeline

This whole thing looks very difficult to justify. Some of the quoted sizes have no citations at all and don't match the linked article, some have citations but the quoted size doesn't appear to be in them, and there doesn't seem to be any way of deriving the date ranges from the given citations. Tagging for now. Maybe it can all be made verifiable, but it is a long way short at the moment. Lithopsian (talk) 19:55, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

More interestingly, even if we can verify that the stars were believed to be the sizes in question on the dates in question, how can we verify that they were the "largest (known) star" in the years in question? Tarl N. (discuss) 20:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll mention one (of many) very obvious problems with establishing this timeline. NML Cygni is listed as having a radius of 1,650 R_☉ and being the largest star from 2012-2013. The NML Cygni article currently cites a size of 1,050 R_☉ from a 2010 paper. Clearly it wasn't the largest known star in 2012 or 2013. Possibly it was the largest star as reported in Wikipedia, but it hardly makes sense to be reporting that if we now know it was wrong. Lithopsian (talk) 19:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

It was WOH G64 the largest from 2012 ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Red Planet X (Hercolubus) (talk • contribs) 20:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Who knows? That's the whole point. It is almost impossible to know, almost pointless even asking, and certainly not sensible to put it in Wikipedia without a lot better supporting research. Lithopsian (talk) 20:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Section probably should go. Largest star is wrong anyway. Better would be largest known, but as size may shrink as remeasured that sounds wrong too. Largest measured known stars... -Koppapa (talk) 11:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the timeline section. This page is on my watchlist, but I rarely look at it, so I did not follow the development of the section. I can tell you, however, that as someone with a passing knowledge of astronomy, the section made very little sense to me. The "largest stars" seemed to get consistently smaller over time, the start date of 1970 made no sense, the comments were confusing and did not correlate with information in other columns, etc. I don't think such a timeline is a good idea in the first place, but even if we were to agree to have one, the one I just removed would not work at all. A2soup (talk) 01:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Tarl N. (discuss) 01:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I question the neutrality of the article because it uses subjective words such as "notable" and "well-known".

Those two words are unnecessary. Wikipedia should not use those kinds of subjective terms. It is subject to introductory bias and is often used by insignificant POVers to deNPOVify articles whilst being hidden from experienced users' anti-bias radars. Unless you can cite a study contradicting what I just said. I find the essay WP:CIR confusing and I am also ridiculing experienced users' references to WP:CIR since it's just an essay and is not a policy or guideline, or maybe it's just one of those essays that are treated just like policy. It seems that some experienced editors want to focus more on making Wikipedia look better rather than make Wikipedia less instructional, more neutral or less about the writer and reader. --Turkeybutt (talk) 00:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

"Notable" does not appear in the article. "Well-known" is used precisely because these stars are well-known, so that we can list them here to begin with. The ones that we don't know, cannot be listed. This has nothing to do with neutrality. - DVdm (talk) 07:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

We know about over a million stars. So if we know a million stars, then we can list all of them on the list, but we shouldn't. That would be too much. Please define well-known. Many people don't know about these stars, so using the non-neutral 'well-known' would be unverifiable nonsense. Verifiability and neutral point of view are super important to me. I put neutrality and verification as my top two priorities on Wikipedia. --Turkeybutt (talk) 18:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Note that you are topic banned—see wp:topic ban. Continuing this will get you blocked—see wp:block. See your talk page User talk:Turkeybutt JC#Notification. - DVdm (talk) 19:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Given that if the list today was the exact info even from before without us knowing

Then wouldn't that make V354 Cephei the largest from its discovery until 2008 then surpassed by RW Cephei then WOH G64? If WOH G64 came first then it was the largest from that time until UY Scuti came. (Not Westerlund 1-26 or NML Cygni or VV Cephei A or VY Canis Majoris or Mu Cephei) Right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by V255 Canis Majoris (talk • contribs) 08:28, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2016

Change 'Near the bortder with Andromeda.' to 'Near the border with Andromeda.' by XX Persei

No citation needed unless you want dictionary.... 86.191.30.81 (talk) 11:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done! Thanks for pointing that out. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 11:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC).

Contradiction

"File:Comparison of planets and stars (sheet by sheet) (Apr 2015 update).png" says that NML Cygni is larger than VY Canis Majoris, but the "List of largest stars", along with the respective articles, say the opposite. ZFT (talk) 07:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello! I created a new image of this article. Red Planet X (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2017

To create a list of well known stars. Add Sirius, Pollux, and Arcturus to the list. 2604:2D80:882C:FF39:A095:71A8:4A54:2793 (talk) 21:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

This page is for a list of the largest stars, not well known stars. Stickee (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Significant figures in lead.

In the lead, the radius of the sun in kilometers is listed with 4 sig figs, but in miles with 6 sig figs.

This should be corrected, right? 8.40.151.110 (talk) 00:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Contradiction Antares/Betelgeuse

Betelgeuse [...] if it were placed at the center of our solar system, its outer surface would possibly extend to the orbit of Jupiter.

Antares [...] with a diameter of approximately 1.33 × 10^9 km. I.e., if in place of our sun, it would slightly more than encompass the average orbit of Mars.

... and yet Antares is larger than Betelgeuse !

Somebody please check & correct.

Memo

Betelgeuse's size is variable (between 500-800 Sol's), so the 650 size is an average. I think the Jupiter statement just refers to the max size of 800, so Antares is correctly listed above Betelgeuse, as this is fixed at 700. The Solar radius is 0.0046 AU, giving Antares a diameter of 3.25 AU and Betelgeuse 3 AU (r=650) or 3.72 (r=800).

*The distance to Mars varries from 1.4 AU (min.) to 1.7 AU (max.)

*The distance to Ceres varries from 2.5 AU (min.) to 3 AU (max.)

*The distance to Jupiter varries from 4.95 AU (min.) to 5.46 AU (max.)

So actually, neither the Mars- or the Jupiter statement is correct, both stars are between these two. Patrick1982 14:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Now Betelgeuse is bigger than Antares with 1180 R_☉ (1.64 billion km) and Antares is 883 R_☉ (1.23 billion km) !

New largest star?

Westerlund 1-26 has been moved to the top of the list. The data listed for this star is even more uncertain than the previous entry NML Cygni, little more than a guess if you read the journals in detail. I'd appreciate someone checking into the papers to see if the listed sizes can be supported. There are three references given and one of them clearly gives data for temperature and luminosity that equate to the upper bound, although it doesn't actually specify a diameter and the uncertainties around the (probably variable) temperature and luminosity are high. For all my searching through the other two references I can't see where the lower bound comes from. I suspect I was the person that originally typed in those two numbers. Given that I (or someone else) didn't also put W1-26 at the top of the table, I wonder if the lower bound was a typo of a smaller number. Lithopsian (talk) 13:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

It really matters for every number you type, though, especially if there are a dozen or more stars battling to the first place. As it was said, these stars undergo strong mass loss emitting clouds of masses that make their size measurement very doubtful to impossible. Of course, we must state the exact rankings of the following stars. Pretty much sure though that some stars have upper diameter estimates of surprisingly large sizes, like KY Cygni. It can be as large as VY Canis Majoris at 1,420 × Sun, or it could be the "Mother of All Stars" at an outstaggering 2,850 × Sun. Assuming its highest estimate is correct can blow out all stars in the list, even Westerlund 1-26's highest estimate is correct. But funny it's 7th now. That's how we need to apply in here, critical thinking. We pin down all possibilities. We can't just type a star in here and apply its diameter without looking at possible chances. If we only look at the star's higher estimates and put it here, it can be pretty sure though that we access wrong information, especially if we don't look at reliable journals. But I'm really respected to you because you type your words with sources. ==Johndric Valdez (talk) 11:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)==

1430 solar radii

I had to change KY Cygni back to 1420 solar radii if you don't mind. How the heck did it get 1430 solar radii and Wikipedia let it remain that way? First of all, there is no evidence of that slightly changed size and secondly, when I went inside the page, it says 1420 solar radii. — Preceding unsigned comment added by V255 Canis Majoris (talk • contribs) 01:46, 29 May 2017 (UTC) New Sizes: (2017)

I think it was just a typo. Gotorn 999999 (talk) 10:37, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I think the two had to be differentiated because no two unrelated stars can be exactly 1,420 R_☉. For example, I think that VY Canis Majoris is 1,977,000,000 km and KY Cygni is 1,988,000,000 km. (also see the VY Canis Majoris vs. KY Cygni (vs. Mu Cephei) section I added to the bottom)

Change language from "largest" to "largest known?"

Would it be more correct to reference the largest star as the largest known star?

Change: "Currently the largest star in the Milky Way and in the universe." To: "Currently the largest known star in the Milky Way and in the universe."

If so, there is at least one other location in the article that would also need editing.

Ahlfi006 (talk) 01:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Calculated sizes

I think some sizes should be calculated manually. For example, La Superba has a radius of 300 R_☉ calculated from its angular diameter and distance from Earth. Theta Muscae's real size is around 422 R_☉, also calculated from mass and luminosity. S Doradus was once recorded as 550 R_☉, which was calculated from its luminosity and temperature (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_largest_stars&oldid=95198043), and the 1,650 R_☉ for NML Cygni was calculated with the Stefan-Boltzmann law with data from http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.1850. I know some of them will not have refs, but I think it would be fine. --#bodyContent a[title="User:Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL"] { background-color: #00ff00; color: #ff0000; font-weight: bold; } 04:16, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Its a tricky one. Original research and synthesis are definitely verboten, but simple numerical identities are allowed. So, converting parsecs to light years is definitely OK because there is no possibility of error or confusion. Calculation of a stellar radius from a bolometric luminosity and an effective temperature is a fixed numerical calculation, but it has some risks. At a minimum, as a non-trivial relation that many people won't be familiar with, it probably needs a note about where the number came from although I haven't always done that because I'm a bit lazy. Some people have expressed the view that it should never be done in Wikipedia, but probably without a full understanding that there is a fixed physical relationship that cannot change and has no external assumptions (ie. that the "effective" part of effective temperature actually refers to a body with a particular size rather than to a "real" temperature). There are also some gotchas: the temperature should be an effective temperature or the radius becomes meaningless; the luminosity and temperature really should come from the same source, because different assumptions leading to the luminosity and temperature may make the radius insupportable; watch out for throwaway assumptions about either the luminosity and temperature, they may be OK to quote but they are a flimsy basis for deriving other data; almost any explicitly published radius is better than one calculated in this way. Lithopsian (talk) 14:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

VY Canis Majoris vs. KY Cygni (vs. Mu Cephei)

What's the difference if I put VY Canis Majoris above KY Cygni since it was a title holder anyway? And if KY Cygni's 2,850 is considerable then put a different radii for KY Cygni and do your best to confirm any radii other than 1,420. If you can't do that, it stays in 1,420 and VY Canis Majoris wins. Or does Wikipedia just wanted KY Cygni to be above VY Canis Majoris? Explain to me why KY Cygni keeps on going higher than VY when it is no difference and recently, the 2,850 in a parentheses did not come back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by V255 Canis Majoris (talk • contribs) 16:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

This isn't about titles or winning. This is Wikipedia and it is only about presenting verifiable information in a neutral style. This list pushes the boundary in a great many ways, and continually risks presenting vague and contradictory information as a single concrete ranking. Please don't make it worse. Lithopsian (talk) 17:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

OK but consider that the radii they have now stays since the larger estimates can "NEVER" be confirmed as accurately as their current size. Plus why is NML Cygni still larger than VY Canis Majoris in the caption if NML Cygni is already smaller than Mu Cephei? Is it going to be replaced by WOH G64 or any other or should it remain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by V255 Canis Majoris (talk • contribs) 03:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Dude, this picture was done when NML Cyg was still 1,650. Now it is 1,183. It's just like a took a picture of a destroyed Germany in World War 2, and you reacted why Germany doesn't look like that anymore in 2016. Times change. And on the radii, yes. We only base it on the authors. The authors are the ones who solely have the authority to place sizes. We just report it. SkyFlubbler ^(talk) 10:21, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

There is another star that could rival both VY Canis Majoris and KY Cygni. Mu Cephei (aka Herschel's Garnet Star) has been given a radius of 1,420 R_☉ by Emily Levesque. This value was widely accepted when VY Canis Majoris was the largest, and it might actually be the true size. However some estimates put it at around 1,260 R_☉ or as low as 650 R_☉. So should I downscale Mu Cephei or bring it up to 1,420 to rival VY Canis Majoris or KY Cygni? ----Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL 05:11, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Random numbers off the top of your head

There have been another series of edits in the last couple of days (you know who you are) changing the values in the table to numbers either remembered from some long-obsolete blog or just plain made up. This is not acceptable, never has been, and will always get reverted (undo with a comment if I'm feeling in a good mood). The values in the table must be verifiable. Most simply this means using the same number as the individual star article. In some cases, a different external source might be cited, but usually the individual star article should be changed to match. Just changing a number because you want one star to be at the top of the list, or because you don't like a particular star or have never heard of it, or because one star was the most famous when you were a small boy, are not valid reasons to edit this article. Doing so repeatedly is a good way to get yourself banned, or the article locked. Lithopsian (talk) 14:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

For example, Psi Aurigae was given a radius of 637 R_☉. It says at the page and was cited in Levesque et al's ref in the list, but Psi Aurigae is not in Levesque, as well as the number 637. Also around in ~2014, Herschel's Garnet Star was given a radius of 1,035 R_☉ (median number of 650 and 1,420), Betelgeuse 1,075 R_☉ (median number of 950 and 1,200 which are in two separate refs), V354 Cephei 1,105 R_☉ (median number of 690 and 1,520), RW Cephei 1,435 R_☉ (average of 1,260 and 1,610, both of which were uncited numbers and should have been 1,535), and VV Cephei A 1,475 R_☉ (median number of 1,050 and 1,900). All of these numbers are already saved on Google, which helps make it unreliable and gives you numbers plain made up. You can't make values out of two unrelated numbers, unless that number already exists (i.e. VV Cephei A is currently cited as 1,400 R_☉ as an average of 1,050 and 1,900). Just because a star has a high luminosity does not mean you can make up your own number and put it on the list (i.e. you don't control stars) Even if it is calculated, you must provide the luminosity, size, etc. from a ref and provide a note, or else you get original research - this will not be tolerated. ----Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL 22:31, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Psi Aurigae

Please remove Psi¹ Aurigae, not cited, they keep using Levesque but not in given citation --Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL 22:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done as no opposition was expressed. Next discussion separated off below. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@JoeyPknowsalotaboutthat: Given luminosity of 63,579 L_☉ and temperature 3,750 K, this gives 600 R_☉. Zapera ^DISCUSS _CONTRIBS 11:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring

Okay, @ZaperaWiki44, Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL, and Moxy: so what is the issue here? Primefac (talk) 12:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

looks like to young editors not aware of our normal protocols.--Moxy (talk) 15:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Still no reply here .....this is the problem a combination of WP:NOTHERE and Wikipedia:Competence is required.....what we did get is this odd post. --Moxy (talk) 23:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I did not want to start the edit war in the first place, but a user called Ynoss was once helping me to make constructive edits to this page. After his account was blocked due to his friend being accused of sock puppetry, ZaperaWiki44 arrived (i THINK he might be a new sockpuppet of Ynoss due to similar names: http://space-cheetahs.wikia.com/wiki/User:ZaperatorYnossPro44) When I tried to make the list more complete, he retaliated and tried removing some of the refs and values. I told him to stop but he kept on doing it anyway. ----Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL 05:02, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

JoeyPknowsalotaboutthat It is true that we almost have the same name but I'm Ynoss's cousin. It is also true that Ynoss was a great person. Even I know that Space Infinite is Ynoss's friend. And I wanted to move the ranges into the notes. Thanks. Zapera ^DISCUSS _CONTRIBS 13:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 26 September 2017

Please, modify the size of IK Tauri 278 R_☉ to 507 R_☉ with this note . Thanks. Zapera ^DISCUSS _CONTRIBS 11:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Um... why would we be giving radii in cm? never mind that 3.53×10¹³ centimetres equals 3.53×10⁸ km Primefac (talk) 12:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

The cited paper gives the radius in cm, literally 3.53×10¹³ cm. The note is to explain the conversion, to avoid confusion that the number 507 itself does not appear in the paper. I'm a little uncomfortable that we seem to be continuing to edit the article without any real resolution of previous disagreements, albeit with admin moderation - not my place to say though. Lithopsian (talk) 13:55, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I concur on both points. Given that we can just use {{convert}} to make 3.53×1013 centimetres (507 R☉) I don't think we need the note. I also feel that we should address the issues above first. I am happy to implement this change, but consider this the last one until we deal with the other issues. Primefac (talk) 14:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

historical list

Perhaps a list of stars historically considered to be the largest should be added?

For instance, apparently the dark companion of Epsilon Aurigae was hailed as the largest (diameter) known star, incorrectly attributed to being a star, in 1970... (it's not considered a star anymore, rather more likely a dust disc around a binary pair)

• Ottawa Citizen, Ask Andy: The Biggest Star, American Family Features, Fri 27 Nov 1970, p.44

Check the new section at the bottom that I just added. -Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL (talk) 03:26, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

65.94.47.63 (talk) 11:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

This timeline was removed from the page a year ago, so please talk with Lithopsian if you want to put it back. Do not put it back into the list without his permission! --Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL (talk) 06:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not god ;) If there was consensus amongst many editors that the timeline was valuable and verifiable, I couldn't really veto that. However, such consensus seems unlikely, and several editors objected to this table when it was first added. Given that it was previously removed, anyone wanting to add back something similar should really discuss it here first. Someone might have new ideas on how to verify the information in line with Wikipedia guidelines. Lithopsian (talk) 09:42, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@Lithopsian I actually know what should be put in the timetable, since I was already a fan of the Star Size Comparisons meme shortly when VV Cephei A left the #1 throne. However, once I found out that there are some stars in articles that were larger, then there is a reason why this timeline is clearly disputed. I think it should only be the largest stars reported by Wikipedia and other known sources. For example, Betelgeuse was never crowned the largest star on Wikipedia, but I have seen several books and websites saying it is. ----Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL 21:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Hence a list of what Wikipedia said was the largest star at a particular time is not valid. In general, a reliably sourced historical list is almost impossible. Some isolated mentions of particular stars being considered the largest at one time or another can probably be sourced, although many sources (even books) will be anecdotal. Lithopsian (talk) 12:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Timeline of largest star recordholders

Star	Size (R☉)	Current given radius (R☉)	Date	Notes
UY Scuti	1,708 ± 192		2014—......	Margin of error in size determination: ± 192 solar radii. With its smallest value, its size would be smaller than the upper estimate of V354 Cephei (1,520) with 1,516 solar radii. With its larger value, its size would be similar to VV Cephei A's old size with 1,900 solar radii.
Westerlund 1-26	1,951—2,544	1,530 (-2,544)	2013—2014	Very uncertain parameters for an unusual star with strong radio emission. The spectrum is variable but apparently the luminosity is not.
NML Cygni	1,650, 1,642–2,775	1,183 (-2,775)	2012—2013
VY Canis Majoris	1,800—2,200	1,420 + 120	2007—2012	Previously thought to be a star so large that it contradicted stellar evolutionary theory, a newly improved measurement has brought it down to size.
VV Cephei A	1,600—1,900	1,050 - 1,800	1998—2007	VV Cep A is a highly distorted star in a binary system, losing mass to its B-type companion VV Cephei B for at least part of its orbit.
Betelgeuse	~1,180	887 + 203 (-1,180)	2001
Mu Cephei	1,420	1,260	1970—1998
Epsilon Aurigae A & B	2,700-3,000	143 - 358	........—1970	For instance, apparently Epsilon Aurigae was hailed as the largest known star, incorrectly attributed to being a star, in 1970.
Largest known yellow stars:
HR 5171	1,315 + 260, 1,490 + 540		2014—......	The star's real status is disputed. The upper estimate given by Wittowski et al gives a cool temperature, giving it the classification of a red supergiant.
V382 Carinae	747		........—2014

References

References

References?

Feb. 23, 2007: There is NO references to be found in SIMBAD or STScI star catalogs for the two stars: Y1 Aurigae J Cassiopeiae.

If valid source material can be given, with RA and DEC - it would be most helpful. Otherwise I am thinking these are typos and we need to figure out exactly what stars these are SUPPOSE to be.

JjB-54

I'm agree with you. No ref mentions J Cassiopeiae (Maybe it has exploded into a supernova) but, I think Y1 Aurigae means Y Aurigae (Spectral type=F5-F9) (It is one of largest F-type supergiants with a radius around 511 solar radii (711,005,400 km)). It was just a typo. Gotorn 999999 (talk) 09:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I searched up J Cassiopeiae on SIMBAD and I found nothing. J Cassiopeiae probably never existed in the first place because J is not a variable star designation. I found searched up Y Aurigae and found nothing under the name Y Aurigae, but I found V* Y Aurigae, a Cepheid variable. Even Template:Stars of Auriga does not have a red letter Y in the variable section. Those stars (except V* Y Aurigae) were probably fake. --Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL (talk) 06:29, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Y1 Aurigae = Psi1 Aurigae Zapera ^DISCUSS _CONTRIBS 11:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Relations between Solar radius and Orbital radius of planets

Solar radius(R) = 6.96 × 10⁵ km.

Astronomical unit(AU) = 1.49597870691 × 10⁸km = 214.9 Solar radius.

List of orbital radius of planets

Planet	(AU)	solar radius = 1.0	example stars
Mercury	0.31 - 0.47	66 - 100	Rigel(78)
Venus	0.73 - 0.73	156 - 158
Earth	0.98 - 1.02	211 - 219	Deneb(220)
Mars	1.38 - 1.67	297 - 358	Alpha Herculis(264-303)
Jupiter	4.95 - 5.46	1064 - 1173	Antares(883) Betelgeuse(1180) VV Cephei (1050-1900) VY Canis Majoris (1420)
Saturn	9.02 - 10.05	1939 - 2161	UY Scuti (1516-1900)
Uranus	18.29 - 20.10	3930 - 4320
Neptune	29.81 - 30.33	6408 - 6519

Kometsuga 11:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Alpha Herculis can extend past the orbit of Mars at ~280 R☉. Antares can reach past the Asteroid belt at 883 R☉, Betelgeuse can reach past Jupiter at 1180 R☉, and VY Canis Majoris is now only 1420 R☉ (Jupiter's orbit). UY Scuti extends to Saturn at 1516-1900 R☉. --Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL (talk) 03:26, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits and NML Cygni

Niyet' has been editing size for NML Cygni to be 1650 R_☉, both in this article and in NML Cygni. I have reverted edits altering the size of NML Cygni from 1,183 to 1,650 R_☉ as the source cited, De beck, shows 1,183 R_☉. However the article is wrong according to the source for NML Cygni. Regards— ~ User:Space Infinite

I am not the same person as Niyet', even though I have the same opinions as him. Where did you get the 2208.5 size for 2013 and the 1650 size for 2014-? --Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL (talk) 03:26, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Mock Pages

Niyet' has created a mock article of List of Largest Stars in his sandbox which is visible to public. I have put a warning sign there about using it. For some reason, Butters is at the top of the list at 2.1 googol solar radii?!?!?!?! Niyet' has already been accused of vandalizing Wikipedia by Ynoss and Lithopsian, so I think this is his revenge but mock pages need to stop. Um, Niyet', what are you doing? --Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL (talk) 03:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

There is wide latitude on the allowed content in user sandboxes. However, there is still the guiding principle that they are there for Wikipedia purposes, not simply as a convenient hosting space. Some sandbox uses are explicitly banned and will be quickly removed, such as abuse, copyright infringement, and circumventing the removal of pages or blocking of a user. The sandbox pages are marked so that they should not be included in search engine results, although they are always publicly viewable by following links from within Wikipedia. There is a process for proposing the deletion of userspace pages. Lithopsian (talk) 12:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL: Wrong. It was Niyet' who really accused me, Lithopsian and even Space Infinite of vandalizing Wikipedia not us, and he also accused me of saying that UY Scuti is 2,208.5 solar radii.

This is 2a01:e35:8bcd:7270:3cce:5df0:c854:3c48 who makes UY Scuti 2,208.5 R_☉ not me.

See: https://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liste_d%27%C3%A9toiles_par_taille_d%C3%A9croissante&diff=prev&oldid=138026661 <-- UY Scuti size exaggeration. Thank you— Ynoss du 44 Pro ★ ✉ / _CONTRIBS 16:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

690 solar radii

Should V354 Cephei still remain on the top 5 since the others are following their least estimate? BC Cygni followed its 856 solar radii. KW Sagittarii followed its 1009 solar radii. V354 Cephei was stated to be 690-1520 solar radii. — Preceding unsigned comment added by V255 Canis Majoris (talk • contribs) 16:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Stars are sorted by the lowest given radius. However, 690 R_☉ for the size of V354 Cep is calculated using a temperature and a luminosity from two different published papers, which makes it pretty dubious for use in Wikipedia (see WP:SYNTHESIS), so who knows whether it will last. Lithopsian (talk) 20:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

If that is the case, then there would be a dramatic change for the stars. Eta Carinae would fall from 430 R☉ to 60 R☉, S Doradus from 380 to 100 R☉, Antares from 883 R☉ to 653 R☉, Mu Cephei from 1,260 to 650 R☉, etc.

We don't complain about the data, we accept it and move on. However we might choose, objectively and without cherry-picking, which data to pay the most attention to ;) I've fixed the data for η Car, Antares, and μ Cep. S Dor is correct, 100 - 380 is a range of sizes for a variable star, not a range of estimates, work with it. V354 Cep is still on pretty shaky ground. I'll probably be making more changes, too many dodgy numbers creeping in there without references, with obsolete references, or cherry-picked. Lithopsian (talk) 10:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Theta Muscae Ac and XX Persei

I have seen several sources about Theta Muscae Ac having a size larger than Antares. That would be ~900 R☉ like what Niyet' said. However, it is not on the list as some of you said 452 R☉. In Universe Sandbox 2 it has a size of 288 R☉, while in Celestia it has a size of 14 R☉. I have also seen XX Persei have a size of 1 300 R☉, while some of you said 570 R☉. Which is the right one? --Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

570 R_☉ for the size of XX Persei is calculated using a temperature and a luminosity. Thank you— Ynoss du 44 Pro ★ ✉ / _CONTRIBS 22:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't disagree with calculating a radius from a bolometric luminosity and effective temperature, but it would be best to add a note that this has been done. Since a calculated value will not appear in any reference, it is likely to get deleted. I notice that a radius based on the temperature and luminosity currently in the XX Per article would be 710, not 570 R_☉. One more reason for showing your working so someone doesn't just think it is rubbish and give it the chop. Lithopsian (talk) 09:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

YouTube is not a reliable reference ;) Nor is Universe Sandbox. I wouldn't even call Celestia a reliable reference, although it is based on reliable science plus a few assumptions and simplifications. Reliable references include, in order of preference: peer-reviewed publications; books (real ones, not self-published); press releases from NASA, ESA, Caltech, etc. although they tend to be just paraphrasing and exaggerating published research; some web sites, but not many. Everything else is likely to be made up or copied from Wikipedia, and neither is a reliable reference. The normal Wikipedia preference for secondary sources tends to be suspended for scientific data involving ongoing research. Secondary sources such as books tend to be hopelessly out of date, although there are some review papers that can be useful. Therefore primary sources need to be used, but always consider which ones. Newer is generally better, but watch out for a recent paper that just copied a value from a much older study, or is throwing out a random guess as a passing assumption. Best is a paper with a precis of previous research and then a solid derivation of the value you want. Lithopsian (talk) 09:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I would not call Celestia 1.6.1 a reliable reference either because some of the stars there have their sizes exaggerated:

VV Cephei A - 370 R☉ (what the heck?)

Mu Cephei - 3 870 R☉ (SAY WHAT!?!?!?!? STARS CAN'T EVEN BE THAT BIG!)

RW Cephei - 110 R☉

P Cygni - 1 900 R☉

--Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

It also made VY Canis Majoris to be EVEN 7,720 R_☉ (WTF!?!?!?!? THE STARS CAN'T EVEN THAT BIG) (Larger than both stars that are not real (Shadron Soul and VY Masses Majoris)), this size is extremely wrong because the star size limit is 2,600 solar radii. Thank you—Ynoss THE OFFICIAL ★ ^{✉ discussion} / _CONTRIBS 18:10, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYSG8VQUjjI (names are in portuguese) that star at the end though...

--Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL (talk) 21:05, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@Lithopsian should I request Theta Muscae Ac to added to the list with a note? The luminosity and effective temperature give a radius of around 422 R_☉. --Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL 03:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Where are you getting these numbers? The θ Muscae article doesn't have any data for the components of the triple system. If you have reliable sources then put them in there and we can think about putting them in here also. Remember this article is locked, and that is to provide time to consider what its content should look like, not to build up a wishlist of things you're going to do the day it is unlocked. Personally, I doubt very much that Ac is anything like 422 R_☉, but see what you can find. Lithopsian (talk) 10:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 2 October 2017

I would like to request a change to the picture, because the picture gives NML Cygni a radius of 1,650 R_☉, when the list and articles say 1,183 R_☉. I think ~1,650 R_☉ is the real radius because of calculations made with the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, but that would not be very helpful. Here is the new and updated picture, with NML Cygni down-scaled and VV Cephei A (re-)added:

Relative sizes of the planets in the Solar System and some of the largest stars.

--Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL 23:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Done Primefac (talk) 11:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. ----Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL 22:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 4 October 2017

There are so many wrong things with this list:

• The ref says 203 ± 17 for Deneb, yet the list says 220 ± 17.
• The note for NML Cygni must be removed as the radius of 1,183 R_☉ is present in the picture (not 1,650 R_☉)
• CW Leonis must have another value (please no cherrypicking): 700 R_☉ (ref:)
• NO Aurigae is 130 solar radii (please sort by lowest radius)
• It says {{solar radius|1,800}} and {{solar radisu|2,200}} when it should be {{solar radius|1,800}} and {{solar radius|2,200}}. --Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL 22:39, 4 October 2017 (UTC) --Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL 22:39, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
• The ref for Rho Cassiopeiae says 400–500 R_☉. The margin of error is not a range.

No ref says that NO Aurigae would be 130 R_☉ and the given citation says 630. Zapera ^DISCUSS _CONTRIBS 10:54, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Not done for now: please continue to discuss what the correct value(s) should be — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

VY CMa

Is the upper estimate of VY Canis Majoris even obsolete? (1,800 to 2,100 R_☉) ----Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL 03:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Neither of those numbers is present anywhere in the article. Where are you even getting these numbers? Primefac (talk) 11:07, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

These numbers are described (and cited) in VY Canis Majoris. They are the radius range "originally" derived in Humphreys et al (2006), based on 2001 photometry and even older distance estimates. Compared to 2013 VLTI/AMBER measurements, combined with updated photometry and high-precision parallaxes from 2008 and 2012, yes it is obsolete. Worth describing in the text since it isn't exactly ancient history and it was the basis for VY CMa being declared the largest star at the time, but not to be considered as the current best estimate of its properties. In particular, the distance to VY CMa has been significantly reduced, with a corresponding reduction in its derived luminosity, and modern temperature calibrations give somewhat higher temperatures for this type of star. Mauron & Josselin (2011) derive similar properties to Wittkowski (2013), although without explicitly quoting a radius (would be 1534 R_☉ by my calculation). It is worth noting that VY CMa is variable in brightness by a factor of about 15 in the visual range, although much less in the infrared making up most of its luminosity. Lithopsian (talk) 11:20, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Prune list

Also, why are there so many "well-known stars" below the list of 700 R_☉ cut-off point? The list goes down to stars like Delta Sagittarii, which isn't even that big at 16 R_☉, and Cygnus OB2-8A, which I wouldn't consider "well known" or even visible to the naked eye. Loooke (talk) 14:13, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• Please don't «prune» the comparison list, just rename the second part to «A list of several large stars that are included for the purpose of comparison». The second part can be used for reference. ----Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL 03:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

But do we really need so many of them? It looks like there are about twice as many stars below the 700 R_☉ cut-off point than there are above, and this is supposed to be a list of the largest stars, not random bright stars like Pi Puppis. Loooke (talk) 22:27, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Loooke, I think it would be no issue to remove the "reference" stars <700 that have no "reference" associated with them (for example, IK Tauri). Primefac (talk) 11:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

It looks like IK Tauri has a reference attached to it, but I can't find the 278 R_☉ value anywhere in the article. Loooke (talk) 22:27, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

There is a radius in the cited paper, given in cm, but it doesn't seem to be anything like 278 R_☉. The value 278 was added by me to IK Tauri when the article was created and presumably copied here. I've edited it to what I believe it should be and added a note on the derivation. Lithopsian (talk) 10:49, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Loooke, I meant "reference" as in "why is this listed as a 'reference' star when no 'reference' is given", not that it didn't have a source. Personally I feel that anything without a decent reason for being kept should be axed. Primefac (talk) 14:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I also think there are far too many "reference" stars. This section was pruned (more than) once a while back and should be pruned again. Any star that isn't widely known by non-astronomers, or doesn't have a very specific explanation in the comments section about why it is relevant, should go. I can guess why IK Tauri is there, but I don't think many people will get the connection without a hint. Lithopsian (talk) 11:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Lithopsian, and that would be... ? Primefac (talk) 13:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@Lithopsian There is a problem. You said «any star that is not well-known to non-astronomers should go.» But not many people are astronomers, and those who aren't know very little stars. For example, my father only knows the stars Betelgeuse and Mira A, but doesn't know specifically what makes them special. Even some of the students at my school only know the Sun. So, I think the best thing is to keep all of the stars that have (a) special characteristic(s) about them. For example, the stars above 10 R_☉ that appear in Jim Kaler's The 100 greatest stars can be included on the list. You can also include special stars, like in this stellar database: https://jumk.de/astronomie/special-stars/ (but don't use the sizes!) ----Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL 03:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Here are the ones I suggest you should keep: User:JoeyPknowsalotaboutthat/PRUNEDLIST ----Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL 05:12, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Leave the sizes and refs as they were. Also, all of those stars were actually taken from my sandbox, which was supposed to be a full-as-possible stellar database that had material taken out of the 2012 edition of the list (before it was pruned on December 2012). When I was engaged in that edit war, I told him to stop taking things out of my sandbox, but he kept on doing it so I decided to stick with the idea. If you are too lazy to prune the list, just rename the page to List of large stars (not necessarily largest). Anyway, just think of something that we all would agree on. ----Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL 21:07, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Would you mind terribly rearranging those in size order so it more closely matches the existing list? I'm bouncing all over trying to see what goes where. Also, just from scanning the list I think anything that doesn't have a "fun fact" for why it's on the list, it should be cut. That would trim the list down considerably and we wouldn't need to haggle over which stars stay or go. Primefac (talk) 11:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac Those stars are already in correct order from smallest to largest. ----Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL 21:33, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I think it is time to prune the list. Replace the entire List section with the source of this test page: User:JoeyPknowsalotaboutthat/PRUNEDLIST. Please don't remove some of the stars, I know there are still several but that is due to an issue listed above. You may add more, though. Thank you. --Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL 02:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Please seek comment from the other participants on this pruned list before using {{edit protected}}. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:19, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Just prune the list already, all of those are well known stars, and I guess we don't need that much on the real list. ----Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL 23:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 17 October 2017

I have noticed that several of the listed stars are given values that do not match the values in the given references. This is not acceptable and severely needs to be removed. I know I said this earlier, but you need to replace the entire list section with the source code of User:JoeyPknowsalotaboutthat/PRUNEDLIST. And please don't omit some of the stars, despite not having a note, because all of those are well-known stars. Finally, update the number of uncounted Magellanic Clouds red supergiants to 75. Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL ^{(Visit/Talk/Contribs)} 04:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: section above suggests there is not consensus for that version — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 17 October 2017

The spelling of "Boltzman" should be "Boltzmann" in the first note. Boardhead (talk) 12:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. Primefac (talk) 12:40, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Primefac: are you acting as editor or admin on this article? (I know this change is uncontroversial, but better not to mix the two roles!) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

 Self-trout. Originally it was as an administrator, then as a "facilitator", and I think I'm starting to blur the lines a bit. Thanks for the note. Primefac (talk) 13:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

700 R_☉ to 500 R_☉

Should other stars between 500 to 700 R_☉ be added? If so, I would also update one of the caveats to: «A survey of the Magellanic Clouds has catalogued most of the red supergiants and 75 of them are larger than the 500 R_☉ (696,000,000 km; 3.3 AU; 432,000,000 mi) cutoff point of this table, with the largest at 1,200–1,300.» The reason is because many people would think of the «large» stars being up to 500 R_☉ (Antares was once thought to be 300 R_☉). ----Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL 20:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

So, nobody objected and you did it. Hard to complain about that, but I'm going to complain anyway. The list is hopelessly incomplete down to 500 R_☉, and never likely to be meaningfully complete. It is pretty patchy and difficult to handle even at the previous cutoff of 700 R_☉. My thought would be to aim for quality rather than quantity - there are plenty of large stars to go out and nobody is really interested in "the 53rd-largest star except for the ones that got missed off the list". Oh and just a thought, but maybe it would be best if the first edits after having the article locked for disruptive editing were beyond reproach rather than giving them impression of just carrying on as if nothing had happened. Lithopsian (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 24 October 2017

Should we actually start sorting some of the radii by the highest estimate, especially if the higher number is more verifiable than the other. For example, I think IRC+10420 would be loose and shift to larger than HR 5171. --Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL ^{(Visit/Talk/Contribs)} 03:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC) Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL ^{(Visit/Talk/Contribs)} 03:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I entirely disagree. If I can ever get access to this article page I'd fix it. 07:26, 24 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arianewiki1 (talk • contribs) 07:26, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Move request

This list is better off being called List of most voluminous stars because the word large has several meaning, and people could think of large as having the same meaning as mass, when mass actually refers to weight. --Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL ^{(Visit/Talk/Contribs)} 19:20, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. "List of largest stars" is implicit enough. Arianewiki1 (talk) 22:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Formal proposal

Okay, since discussion is mostly disjointed above, I have a formal proposal: remove all sub-700 R_☉ entries that do not have a "note". The sub-700 list is larger than the 700+ list, which is kind of silly. We only need to keep stars that actually have something interesting written. Primefac (talk) 13:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Good idea. Zapera ^DISCUSS _CONTRIBS 13:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

It would be a start. Given the title List of largest stars, anything not on that list down to whatever cutoff we decide on, should just be to set the main list in context. Anything beyond that is a different list, either in a separate or renamed article needing a lot more discussion. One or two first magnitude stars that my mother would recognise can probably be exempt from needing a note? Sirius? The titla of the secondary list should probably change too, they aren't necessarily well-known. Or maybe they should all be "well known" by some definition, which would exclude a lot more. Lithopsian (talk) 14:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

• Here is the best outcome for the Pruned List: User:JoeyPknowsalotaboutthat/PRUNEDLIST Thank you. ----Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL 17:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

  Except that you have removed none of the sub-700 R_☉ stars. Primefac (talk) 18:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean? I know the list is still long, but just please prune the list already. All of those stars are well-known. ----Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL 05:10, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeap. "All of those stars are well-known.", but their sizes are not. Half of these have diameter errors exceed 70%! Why bother, if you don't comprehend that this list is almost worthless? Worst, we can't prune the list, because you get this page protected. ...but is that what you want here? Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:22, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

V838 Mon (1,570 R_☉)

Is the upper estimate of V838 Monocerotis (1,570 ± 400 R_☉) obsolete too? Zapera ^DISCUSS _CONTRIBS 11:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

V838 Mon was (probably) a stellar merger. It has consistently shrunk since it was first discovered. The list is not well-suited to representing such transients. It isn't easy to separate older estimates of its properties from newer estimates of its properties at a different time. I don't know what should go in the table, but we probably shouldn't deliberately give properties that are known to no longer be valid without a huge amount of caveats. I know a star that went supernova a few years ago, pretty big for a while ;) Lithopsian (talk) 12:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that V838 Monocerotis's upper estimate is obsolete, because V838 Monocerotis is an eruptive variable star, so who knows, it might erupt back to that size in the future :) --Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL ^{(Visit/Talk/Contribs)} 05:52, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

OK. What is the error for V838 Mon size here then? Please either show some facts here, and don't make such unsubstantial statements again. Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:27, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Page protection request

Change the protection of the page to administrators only as I have had enough of users and IPs like 88.188.215.39 thinking that they rule the page and their opinions are the only ones that are verified/correct. It seems that they hate my improvements. I do not want to start an edit war with them as this is my 3rd revert. --Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL ^{(Visit/Talk/Contribs)} 21:57, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

All that you are doing is attempting to constrict other editors from editing, and desiring page protect confirms this . Saying "thinking that they rule the page" is avoid WP:GF, saying "It seems that they hate my improvements." avoid WP:Consensus Yes, you have started an edit war, and you've been explained that WP:3RR can be defined on even less edits. You are defying editing principles, ignoring advice, and now outrageously now claim "as I have had enough of users and IPs." Arianewiki1 (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Update: Introduction and Cavearts

At last I have access to edit this space without WP:Page protection I have reorganised and expanded these sections to reflect some of the various size issues expressed above. The main points highlight that the cause of errors are from distance, luminosity and effective temperature; and depend on the opacity of the tenuous stellar atmosphere. As there is no specific article on stellar radii, IMO such a single page should be created to reflect this properly, rather than just under the properties of stars. Furthermore, star diameters is so inadequate, that it needs drastic revision. Please note. I have changed nothing at all with the current lists of stars, but note that it remains a mess because of the lack of understanding on how radii is derived. We should perhaps question the luminosity and given temperatures, use their ranges, and actually calculate size and error using the standard Stefan–Boltzmann law - which unless physically measured, is really how radii are mostly obtained. I'd appreciate further comments oe edits towards additional ideas, not wanting to diminishing all the earlier comments. Please check this current edit. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts.....was not able to get adminis to take real action here(spoke too soon editor block)..... page protected again for 3 days....if an edit is needed just ask.--Moxy (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Revert original edits

Why revert my recent edits? They are 100% consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2407:7000:817C:1730:5906:3419:91D1:F3D (talk) 05:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

If you are being reverted, then you don't have a consensus. When you don't have a consensus, you need to discuss the issue on the talk page to get a consensus. If the consensus goes against what you personally want for the page, then you have to just deal with it. Primefac (talk) 13:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

List order

What order are the stars in now? It seems to be almost random. Lithopsian (talk) 13:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I think it's a holdover from the Joey P fiasco. Some lower values were added to the list but they were never reordered. I'll take care of it. Primefac (talk) 14:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I know Joey in real life. He said that he has had enough of the WP community and that he never wants to edit back here, or sock, make a block evasion. --ThenewEmilyLevesque (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

List order

What order are the stars in now? It seems to be almost random. Lithopsian (talk) 13:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I think it's a holdover from the Joey P fiasco. Some lower values were added to the list but they were never reordered. I'll take care of it. Primefac (talk) 14:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I know Joey in real life. He said that he has had enough of the WP community and that he never wants to edit back here, or sock, make a block evasion. --ThenewEmilyLevesque (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Scope of this page

Due to a ridiculous amount of back-and-forth, both on the article and this talk, I want to try and codify a set of "guidelines" for the page so that we can finally put some of these debates to bed. It's not a full RFC, but if necessary I'll open it up as one. I'll bring in WP:AST into the discussion as well. Primefac (talk) 12:46, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Size range

The old version of the page had the "minimum" radius as 700 R_☉, and now it's at 500 R_☉. Which should it be?

• 700, which really just goes along with the status quo but it's what we've had in the past, and there are a ton of stars that large (and larger). I'm not fussed if it stays at 500, though. Primefac (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
• 700 for now. I'm not opposed to a different value, smaller or larger, but I am opposed to just adding a handful of smaller stars and calling the cutoff 500. If someone manages to make a credibly complete list of smaller supergiants, then good on them. Lithopsian (talk) 18:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
• 700. I think the article should focus on the larger stars. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• 600 or 700. I moved the limit up by 100 to include well-known large stars, like Antares and Betelgeuse. --Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL ^{(Visit/Talk/Contribs)} 22:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Rubbish. This makes absolutely no sense at all, and worse, is just picking at straws. Lack of understanding how radii is determined plainly shows the folly of such an approach. Bigger isn't better. Simple. Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

@Arianewiki1: I think Joey and ThenewEmilyLevesque wanted to see Antares as in the list or even bigger than 1 billion km or 800 R_☉ although 680 R_☉ is the actual and probably the most reliable estimate for this star. (BTW, in my opinion, I use 890±150 R_☉) ZaperaWiki44^{(✉/Contribs)} 12:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@ZaperaWiki44: Except that it is! Daniel "Danny" Fenton (talk) 10:56, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorting

Some stars have a range of lengths reported. Do we sort by largest value, smallest value, or the average?

• Traditionally the table has been sorted by the smallest value. There are a number of reasons for this, but the short story is that it is the least bad option. Taking averages is too much original research. We have no basis for averaging numbers from different authors using wildly different methods, and no way of weighting them if we did take an average. In many cases (eg. VV Cephei or VY CMa), it is very much either-or and not something in between. The largest value in a range, particularly if we stretched the limits to include many more results, simply becomes meaningless. The issue of massive uncertainties in the whole scale of supergiant physical properties becomes worse the further back in time you go, with values being published just a few decades ago that are no longer believed by anyone. There are a few cases where anomalously small radii have been published (see VY CMa again), but we're under no obligation to include them if they haven't gained traction in the scientific community. There has also been a general trend, over the last 20 years at least, of reducing estimates for red supergiant radii so that in a very crude way the smallest number tends to be the most modern and the most accurate. Lithopsian (talk) 19:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
• Yeah, I just know there was a bit of contention at one point above. I think by smallest value makes the most sense. Primefac (talk) 01:05, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• I agree that averaging makes no sense. Too much goes into a size determination - distance, interstellar absorption, atmospheric modeling. It is much better to go by the smallest reasonable value. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:56, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Reported radius and error

Due to the fact that we're looking at balls of gas a rather large distance away, some of the measurements for the stars change over time (as techniques improve, new methods are used, etc). How how many references should we use as verification for the radius of a star? If two sources agree, do we just use that number? If three sources give a three different values, do we list it as <smallest>-<largest> between the three? Do we take the average? Do we take only the most recent value?

Going against all Wikipedia policies, we should cherry-pick a value from a primary source! That primary source will usually be the most recent (the accuracy of astronomical instrumentation and models advances every year), with a great many caveats. Preferably use a source that is specific to the star in question or a small number of similar stars, preferably that is aware of previous research and discusses it to place the results in context. Definitely avoid sources that are simply quoting previous published results to give some background to their own results. Try to avoid large statistical-style surveys that apply very simplistic rules to get results for many stars and don't mind that they may be wildly inappropriate in individual cases, although sometimes it is the only available source. Secondary and tertiary sources are almost useless; a few review papers could be considered secondary sources, but most books and websites just give random numbers that can't be verified and are at best decades old, at worst just anecdotal. Then ignore everything I've just said, in some cases there really isn't a single-best-most-recent source and there really are genuine disagreements about the properties of a star. In those cases, the individual star article should explain and this list really should be giving a headline summary. Another approach is just give a large range or list of values here and make it really obvious just how meaningless the list is, either way is good. Lithopsian (talk) 19:22, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• I concur (with all of it?). Primary sources are really our best bet, and by finding a combination of <recent> plus <most cited> we're more likely to find an "accurate" value. I also agree that if there are two (or three) equally "valid" answers we can just cite them both, give both numbers, and leave a note (after all, that's what that column is for, right?). Primefac (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• I agree with the above. Additionally the table needs to make clear what a given measurement range means. Some of these stars are pulsating variables. For example UY Scuti is a pulsating variable but the radius given seems to have been calculated from measurements made at a single time with a ± uncertainty in the result. On the other hand the sizes given for VX Sagittarii are calculated using the extremes of effective temperature (thus size for this type of variable) and are not an uncertainty in measurement. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

  That could be done either by a footnote or by formatting (e.g. regular for a "normal" measurement, bold for a variable star). Depends on how many different types of measurements we're dealing with, but the issue is solvable. Primefac (talk) 17:45, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Which stars to keep

Continuing on from the previous point, some stars have a huge ± error value. Do we remove stars that have a "higher than X%" error?

Keep them all, or none ;) The margin of error on all these stars is enormous. The formally quoted margins (sometimes!) published capture only a small portion of the uncertainties involved. The list is effectively meaningless, but continues to exist effectively by popular demand; given a population of stars with a more-or-less fixed cutoff point for their maximum possible size, the order of the top few stars in this list is determined almost entirely by the inaccuracy of the published radius value. Combined with the historical trend of "found a huge new star" shortly followed by "oh, not quite so huge after all", it does mean the whole thing is something of a futile exercise. I wouldn't want to exclude any star of the basis of uncertainty, but I'm always in favour of striving to avoid the inevitable declaration of whatever star is randomly first in the table at a particular time getting plastered all over the internet with lurid headlines. Lithopsian (talk) 18:59, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Just to give some hope for us all, angular diameters can be measured extremely accurately for some of the closer large stars, and fingers crossed Gaia will give us distances with similar accuracy in just a few years. Then we would have, subject to the modelling of different radii at different wavelengths, non-uniform discs, temporal variation, and departures from sphericity, some pretty accurate results. Right now we are dependant on hugely-uncertain distances, or a combination of very uncertain luminosities and somewhat uncertain temperatures (which have a very strong influence on the radius). Lithopsian (talk) 19:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• Agree with "all" and the above. Primefac (talk) 01:07, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• 110% agree. Lithopsian especially saying : "I'm always in favour of striving to avoid the inevitable declaration of whatever star is randomly first in the table at a particular time getting plastered all over the internet with lurid headlines." is spot on, and is a statement in exactly how I feel about this. I think another additional option is to also state the method used and its wavelength - a criteria that should be meet to make the list. Again, if the luminosity and effective temperature source is verified, we could use the Stephan-Boltzmann black-body formulae to calculate the theoretical radii, thus avoiding the contentious radii that depends only on the various cites. Just a thought. Arianewiki1 (talk) 23:15, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Other tables

There is currently a table listing some comparisons of stellar sizes with the solar system. Stay or go? Or go somewhere else? There has previously been a table giving historical largest stars, removed as unverifiable although it persists (for now) piecemeal at the bottom of individual star articles. Can anything be done along those lines? Should it? Is there a better or just different way of presenting any of this large star information? Lithopsian (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• Call me odd (but don't call me Shirley), but I think the "orbits" trivia should actually be in the main table. Much like how we have the "sun's largest radius" I think having the orbits of (at the very least) the outer planets would be better directly in the table so you get a feel for how big these things are whilst browsing the table itself. Primefac (talk) 01:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• It would be helpful to incorporate the planetary orbits into the table in some way. As the reference for VXSgr says vividly, the star seems to be always larger than the orbit of Jupiter and sometimes almost as large as that of Saturn. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Feel free to add other subheadings/questions to discuss above. I think this is a good start, though, and will hopefully allow us to minimize some of the edit warring that has happened recently on the page. Primefac (talk) 12:46, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2018

122.174.13.110 (talk) 14:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
Please request your change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 14:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Comparison of planets and stars (2017 update).png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 07:51, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2018

Please add a giant banner between the cells of HD 143183 and VY Canis Majoris, with the same wikitext for the banner that says "The following well-known stars are listed for the purpose of comparison." but instead of saying that, it states that stars above this banner have less accurate and older radius estimates. Citation would be ref #16. 27.252.55.248 (talk) 04:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I disagree because there are some radii above VY CMa, such as the 1,530-1,580 R_☉ value for Westerlund 1-26, that are recent but after all yes they are perhaps incorrect. And also I know that the 1,420 R_☉ for VY CMa is well-characterized and is considered the highest well-characterized radius among the stars but it is still possible that some stars above has well-characterized radii too. ZaperaWiki44^{(✉/Contribs)} 11:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. It's a reasonable request, but it seems there's dissent and so a consensus should be reached. Primefac (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

How it is measured

I'm thinking, based on the recent edit by Lithopsian, that maybe we should add in a column for how the measurement was calculated? This would be similar to the method of detection used in List of exoplanets and would show readers how often the various methods are used. Primefac (talk) 15:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Great idea, but it is rather hard to implement. Method is one means, but sizes are also observed to be wavelength dependent, being where stellar atmospheric opacity determines depth. Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Could be done. The method should be available at least for the quoted value and a given reference. If the reference doesn't say how the radius was determined, we probably shouldn;t be relying on it. A considerable number of the largest known stars now have directly (ie. interferometrically) measured diameters. Might need to say a lot more about the comparability of angular diameters and radii from effective temperatures. Lithopsian (talk) 13:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Started. Added a column, filled in the first few stars. Many others can be quickly filled in since they use the same refs, but I think we need some thoughts now on how much to spell out the methods in words and how much to use abbreviations. For now, I've used some codes which should be self-explanatory to us in the know. No doubt there will be some unknowns, mixtures, and odd cases. Lithopsian (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

"A considerable number of the largest known stars now have directly (ie. interferometrically) measured diameters." It is merely Betelgeuse and Antares, and even the results are fairly poor due to issues like limb darkening and variable radii due to being variable stars. Just saying. Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Stars are measured by either using their angular diameter and distance, or with the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, using their temperature and luminosity. Joey717 ^(talk) 06:57, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Page protection

Why the heck is this page protected? I mean, seriously, this is not a controversial topic that should need any protection. Can't even edit it as a newly created logged in user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ymk1234 (talk • contribs) 09:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

It is being protected because of one poorly behaving child-like mutiple sockpuppet who has been continuously bombarding this page to seemingly cause as much disruption as possible. You could eventually have access to this page if you can show genuine interest in improving articles. Yet starting as new user, with this being your very first edit and all, then complaining about page protection already raises suspicion of sock behaviour. It doesn't auger well. I mean, really. Of all the millions of pages available to edit here and somehow you pick this one? What of the odds here? Editing here importantly relies on WP:GF, but there is a limit when others deliberately abuse privileges. Sometimes trust has to be earned. Sorry. Arianewiki1 (talk) 11:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi! Wow, srsly? Some ppl are just tards. And this is my first comment on a new account because I actually just wanted to fix the sorting by size, saw protection, registered, still couldn't edit, and then complained ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ymk1234 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

That "sockpuppet" is my friend, who is obsessed with Butters Stotch (who clearly doesn't even deserve a Wikipedia article in the first place). I have had a stern and serious talk with him about it in real life. I am sorry about that too. Joey717 ^(talk) 06:57, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Quasi-star

Size comparison of a hypothoretical quasi-star compared to several known giant stars. Quasi-stars are predicted to have radii of 7,187 times that of the sun, which are equal to approximately 4.21 times that of UY Scuti.

@Lithopsian and Arianewiki1: Hi. Can we add the size comparison of a quasi-star in this page as these hypothetical stars can be larger with radii of 7,187 R_☉? Thanks. ZaperaWiki44^{(✉/Contribs)} 12:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I think it might be worth a sentence or two (maybe in #Extragalactic large stars?), but since this article is about the largest observed stars, we shouldn't be throwing about too many hypotheticals. Primefac (talk) 13:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

When they find one, it can go in the list. Lithopsian (talk) 14:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Hypothetical stars clearly don't belong in the list. Joey717 ^(talk) 06:57, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2018

Isn't VV Cephei A the largest star at 1,900 solar diameters? Daniel "Danny" Wilson (talk) 02:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Danny, why are you trusting 1999 sources? Joey717 ^(talk) 06:57, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Which star is the largest now?

It's been four days past the most recent time the list had been edited. Which star is really the largest now? Is it VY Canis Majoris because it is on top of the list? Or is it VV Cephei A because there were 3 VY Canis Majorises which makes its size inaccurate? Or is still UY Scuti because of the lack of basis for both VV Cephei A and VY Canis Majoris. It's hard to know because usually, mistakes are corrected so fast especially when it comes to which star is the LARGEST. Which one is now the largest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by V255 Canis Majoris (talk • contribs) 10:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Someone has been trying to make a point. I'll look into it, but there is a whole mess of changes and it is hard to see where the synthesis stops and the sensible edits start - might have to revert the whole lot and pick up the pieces later. Lithopsian (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted the whole lot. The value for VY CMa is impossible to justify: it isn't even in the given paper, but instead calculated from the upper possible luminosity and a temperature even the paper admits is unrealistic. Back to Wittkowski. I have change VX Sgr using the new reference, although actually quoted the range of possible radius values from the paper instead of blindly picking the biggest. All the weird hypothetical stuff commented out is now gone. A bunch of new stars added by the banned user are gone, probably some of them should come back. I've fixed NML Cygni whose radius went missing during the last round of fixups. Shout out if you see anything else badly wrong. Lithopsian (talk) 20:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I have restored some stars but may still be some need to be restored too. Also I have again separated 3 radius estimates for VY CMa (i.e. the 600 value according to Massey, the 1420 according to Wittkowski, and the 1800-2200 according to Humphreys, which is at the top) without restoring the WP:OR value that was made by the banned user, as I wanted to add some information about these 3 estimates (Because otherwise if I add information about these 3 values in the same row, the row would be large and would take up space).

@V255 Canis Majoris: Nobody knows who is actually the largest star and also I have just seen 2 new stars (although they are smaller than the 1800-2200 for VY CMa) which are larger than the 1708 Rsuns for UY Sct and also the 1708 Rsuns for UY Sct is apparently inaccurate, see talk (all that will probably change the opinion of some people about UY Sct being the largest star). And also as I said: I saw a peer-reviewed journal that says VY CMa is the largest known star so it can be the largest as a peer-reviewed journal is a reliable source. (Sorry for my bad english) ZaperaWiki44^{(✉/Contribs)} 00:33, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

VY Canis Majoris, regardless if I or Wikipedia believe it to be 2,200 or 1,420 R_☉. The peer-reviewed publication is a reliable source and clearly says so. Joey717 ^(talk) 06:57, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

V354 Cephei

In an old edit, the size for V354 Cephei was changed from 690 - 1,520 to 1,104.5. This was an average of the previous two values (give or take some rounding). This edit is now being used to support using the same value again for V354 Cephei. Where to begin with all the things that are wrong with that? First, and perhaps most important, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. That number is not contained in either of the two given references, which is something of a problem. It cannot be calculated by combining a temperature from one citation with a luminosity from the other. It was calculated by combining the temperature from one source with the average of the bolometric luminosities from each source. This is called synthesis, an unwarranted derivation of information by combining claims from different sources. Specifically, it is not a trivial calculation to average luminosity (or radius) data calculated by different authors in different ways. That is why there are two values given for the radius: one is published directly in Levesque et al.; the other is calculated from the effective temperature in Levesque et al. and the bolometric luminosity in Mauron & Josselin (which repeats the Levesque luminosity for comparison purposes, but does not in any way suggest they can or should be averaged or given equal weight), which is pushing the limits a bit, but worth doing because it is a newer and likely more reliable value for the luminosity. Lithopsian (talk) 09:33, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I originally mentioned that value and why it shouldn't be added in the list in an earlier discussion. Joey717 ^(talk) 20:33, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2018

The list should allow sorting by solar radius. I would do this change but as the article is protected I can't. Ymk1234 (talk) 08:21, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

 Already done All you have to do is to click on the appropriate box to sort it. That being said, the software does seem to be doing a poor job at sorting it. Dolotta (talk) 19:38, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Mu Cephei

Some editors wanted Mu Cephei to go down to 650 R_☉ (I am not one of them). If the stars have to be sorted by their lowest estimate, then why not mu Cephei? --ThenewEmilyLevesque (talk) 01:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Because that estimate is old. 1,420 or 1,260 is fine JayKayXD (talk) 11:41, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't know. Joey717 ^(talk) 06:57, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 September 2018

OK. I understand that the 1,180 SR estimate for Betelgeuse was originally from a 2009 newspaper but there's a book from 2013 saying that that estimate is accurate. I think we should change Betelgeuse to 1,180 SR. JayKayXD (talk) 22:36, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Please name the sources for this. "...from a 2009 newspaper but there's a book from 2013..." Unless there is a agreeable cite, this should not be changed. Arianewiki1 (talk) 23:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

The ref of the book from 2013 is already on the Wikipedia page as the 1,180 SR estimate is already mentioned as the largest estimate. It's just not the given size. As of the 2009 newspaper, I haven't been able to find it but a lot of websites that wouldn't be a reliable source for a Wikipedia article like this.saying that Betelgeuse is 1,180 SR, say that they got it from a 2009 newspaper. Anyways, I'm still looking. JayKayXD (talk) 00:50, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

The request is closed, so is unlikely to get revisited. A new request would get attention, but it would need good supporting links. For information, I don't believe the 1,180 R_☉ number was ever formally published. It appears to have originated in a press release associated with this paper. The paper did not contain the number 1,180, in fact it only contained angular diameters and it showed a (likely ongoing and possibly cyclical) change in radius, but for some reason the headline number in the press release was (3.7 to ) 5.5 au and this was widely picked up. The conversion from angular to linear diameter was done assuming a distance of 197 pc and the largest of the published angular diameters. This was then converted to 1,180 R_☉, possibly first by Wikipedia but now showing in a number of (online) locations. It will be difficult to find a reliable source of any age for the number 1,180 (your book is the best I've seen and that is so obviously copied from Wikipedia that it probably should be ignored completely) although there will be some (necessarily obsolete) for 5.5. Your energy would be much better directed to tracking down the best current thinking and describing that, including any variations in the radius, in the article instead of just looking for the largest number you ever heard of and trying to shoehorn it in. Lithopsian (talk) 13:33, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Primefac (talk) 15:05, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 September 2018

Add the recent 2,000 solar radii estimate for VY Canis Majoris with this source: https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201220290 Natalia x Daniel "Danny" (talk) 08:25, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Nice try. How is this recent? It is based on paper and is theoretical, indirect, implied, and refers to the emission region.

Also, you look like another multiple blocked sock of User:JoeyPknowsalotaboutthat, and suspect sock User:Joey P. x Natalia Evyanova and they have also used "Danny" as another known sock for User:Daniel "Danny" Wilson.[2] (Noting they made a Semi-protection on this article talkpage.) Looks like a Duck to me. Sorry. 09:48, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

This is obviously copied. VY Canis Majoris isn't the largest star anymore, get over it. JayKayXD (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Primefac (talk) 01:26, 1 October 2018 (UTC)