Talk:List of largest stars

On 10 May 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to List of largest known stars. The result of the discussion was not moved.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

HIP 7496

this paper gives 920 solar radii for this star, altough it is a bit outdated (from 2000). Maybe we could add this star? 21 Andromedae (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... probably not, this more recent paper gives just 103 solar radii. 21 Andromedae (talk) 18:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has an uncertainty of 3,777 R_☉ SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 08:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is WOH G16 a real star?

A while back I saw a comparison of extrasolar objects on YouTube.com that claimed there was a star called "WOH G16" and claimed the star was 4,115,000,000 kilometres (a.k.a 4.115 terameters) in diameter. I do not remember the exact video, and I cannot find any other media online about this star. Does anyone have any intel on this star or know if this star exists? Newaccount33333 (talk) 20:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it wasn't WOH G64? Primefac (talk) 01:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It probably is WOH G17. 21 Andromedae (talk) 01:13, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. The video was probably from B-Rus Space, a comparisons youtuber. The Space Enthusiast (talk) 04:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you and 21 Andromedae are right. I just checked The Space Enthusiast’s guess of the star coming from b-rus space and it was in a star size comparison from 2022. Thank you guys very much for the help! Newaccount33333 (talk) 09:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly he probably doesn’t do good research on the sizes he adds… Atlantlc27Lol (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you’re talking about WOH G17, that’s a foreground star. SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 07:36, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I was. I didn’t know if I was at the time because I wrote down "WOH G16" when it was a digit off. Thank you very much for the help! Newaccount33333 (talk) 09:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And, that message was not sarcastic. I don’t intend to put it that way. Genuinely thank you. Newaccount33333 (talk) 09:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NGC 1313-310 and NGC 253-222

Two new stars at over 1650 solar radii. Should we keep them? Diamantinasaurus (talk) 09:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

they are newly discovered and they are located in distant galaxies outside of the local group (they are further from the sun than NGC 2363-V1) so their sizes might be inaccurate in some ways Hoanghao314159 (talk) 13:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the problem is that i'm not an expert on stars in distant galaxies so you can keep them until an expert explains everything Hoanghao314159 (talk) 13:11, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should we really include all these stars?

The list contains a lot of stars which do not have well-constrained radii. For the stars that have their radii measured with the Stefan-Boltzmann law, many of them (especially the intergalactic ones) do not have properly modelled dust envelopes and assume spherical symmetry or, if in a catalogue, use the exact same extinction correction for each entry, which often lead to significant over- or underestimations in the luminosity as most RSG dust envelopes are asymmetric.

There are also stars on the list that use Gaia data, which is not accurate for RSGs, due to their very large convection cells and the fact that their angular diameters are greater than the stars' measured parallaxes. This causes the star to appear to wobble to a degree comparable to or even greater than the parallax itself.
Therefore, a large portion of the radii on this list are tentative.

Should we remove them until they have better constrained radii? SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 15:42, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. These radii are still better than nothing, and this list never had the objective to be over-accurate. This list can't strict in accuracy because all estimates are uncertain and are still our best guesses. If all star sizes that we think that are inaccurate are removed, this list would have no more than three entries, or would be empty. 21 Andromedae (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the vast majority of the star sizes here are reliable. 21 Andromedae (talk) 18:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Explain why SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 19:14, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is difficult to determine whether an estimate is correct or not, so we assume it is correct until we can determine whether it is (or not). The distances determined by Gaia may be imprecise, but in many cases they are the only estimate available, and are better than nothing. And there are cases where the Gaia distances are consistent with other publications (e.g. PZ Cassiopeiae, R Cancri, V354 Cephei, V509 Cassiopeiae, RW Cephei, BC Cygni) or when the Gaia DR2/DR3 distances are similar (e.g. UY Scuti). 21 Andromedae (talk) 19:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency doesn't always imply accuracy. Also, you can't use Gaia to say that Gaia data is accurate, which you did with all of these stars except for PZ Cas. SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 20:11, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, we are already citing the "best" sources. There are no longer stars based on oudated/unreliable sources like De Beck et al. 2010, or the TESS Input Catalog, or the Messineo & Brown paper, which means we are cutting off less likely estimates and prioritizing better ones. 21 Andromedae (talk) 20:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just remove the tentative ones with blind and potentially inaccurate assumptions. If there are too few, simply lower the list's cutoff. Only keeping the well-defined radii would still leave at least 23 entries above 700 R_☉. SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 19:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that this is a perennial request, with the most recent discussion being about a year ago. Are there new arguments for change, or is this just asking the question because it hasn't been discussed in a while and it's time to bring it back up (again)? Primefac (talk) 19:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are new arguments and this a different request as the linked discussion is about two specific entries, not the list as a whole. I'm not going on about limits this time. I'm instead commenting on radii derived from automated calculations and unreliable Gaia data, which have been used extensively throughout the page and have made it a mess. SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 20:25, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HR 5171 downsize?

HR 5171 has a radius of 1,060 - 1,160 R_☉ in the list, but since combining angular diameter and radius from different sources is apparently allowed, this star can be like 550 - 650 R_☉ assuming a distance of 1.5 kpc and the angular diameter from other papers. Diamantinasaurus (talk) 17:33, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

combining angular diameter and radius from different sources is apparently allowed... it is? When did we come to that consensus? Primefac (talk) 10:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTJUSTANYSYNTH states that Wikipedia synthesis is only original research by synthesis. Since calculations are not original research, it shouldn't violate the policy. SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 08:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am uncomfortable with the idea of taking a distance from one paper and combining it with a radius from another paper in order to get a size calculation, and I do not think that is the sort of exception that your link is meant to describe. Primefac (talk) 12:14, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NML Cygni

NML Cygni on the list uses a distance and angular diameter from two different sources, and attempts to remove it have been reverted. What do we do about this? VY Canis Majoris (talk) 07:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They were reverted because apparently Wikipedia synthesis only refers to unverifiable and original research, which routine calculations are not. SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 17:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, i felt that NML Cygni deserved to be in the list, since it well-known, has an accurate distance and hence accurate properties. I don't mind if two sources are being used for calculating a radius, and it is still better than nothing. Many other articles use two sources for calculating radii in the infobox as well. Just keep the radius as it is. 21 Andromedae (talk) 22:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best thing to do is come to a consensus about how to deal with this situation (and likely "using multiple sources for one fact" in general). I'll cross-post to WT:AST to get more opinions. Primefac (talk) 12:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]