Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.
// request.cf · coarse context
A page that knows where it met you.
Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy
The content of RSGC1-F02 was merged into RSGC1 on 7 December 2023. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
The content of RSGC1-F01 was merged into RSGC1 on 7 December 2023. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
They should be given sections like RSGC1-F13. The articles themselves include information that could easily be condensed into table format so there's no reason for them to be full-blown articles. VY Canis Majoris (talk) 07:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Decin et al. (2024) gives the most recent stellar parameters for stars in RSGC1 (although only for the five that have CO(2-1) emission). They actually give SED-integrated (to my knowledge) luminosities, effective temperature, and radii, which is preferable, however they just seem to be rounded values taken from Davies et al. (2008). Humphreys et al. (2020), on the other hand, doesn’t give direct radii but does integrate SED for the luminosities and effective temperatures which can allow a radius to be calculated. Also noting that a repeated value as seen in Decin et al. (2024) with Davies et al. (2008) can give it more credibility in scientific literature. That being said, what should we use? Faren29 (talk) 17:54, 26 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Decin et al. (2024) just take their radii from the properties listed in Davies et al. (2008), as indicated by the small a footnote below Table 1: From Davies et al. (2008). The properties of Humpreys et al. (2020) are the best to use to provide a (calculated) radius, using the {{solar radius calculator}} template. 21 Andromedae (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
You’ve basically just repeated what I’ve said. I am aware the radii from Decin et al. (2024) are just rounded values from Davies et al. (2008), however they actually give radii values which is always preferable, instead of having to calculate it for ourselves. Faren29 (talk) 16:51, 29 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
.jpg){kind=small}
Merge completed Klbrain (talk) 12:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC)