Talk:WHL0137-LS

Created talk-page

Created the talk-page for the "WHL0137-LS" article - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 17:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

In the news nomination

The star is NOT 12.9 billion light years away as claimed in the news. Its light took 12.9 million years to reach us, but since the universe has expanded since then, the star is further away now. This is a common misconception and mentioned towards the end of this article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_of_the_universe#Metric_expansion_and_speed_of_light

I think it's explained better somewhere else on Wikipedia, but I couldn't find the article. Also sorry for my ignorance of how to properly format that link - I'm not a regular contributor, just a cosmologist who can't let this misconception stand without correction :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:110:3040:2819:261:DD18:EE86 (talk) 16:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your insight. We'll likely need an admin to make this correction on the In the News section. Would rewording it to "over 12.9 billion light-years" be sufficient? Deathstar3548 (talk) 18:15, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

To better determine a more precise distance of the "WHL0137-LS" star from the "Earth", seems "Comoving and proper distances" and "Lookback time" (per the "MACS J1149 Lensed Star 1" article) may be helpful I would think - Editors, more experienced with this than I, are welcome to give the determination a try of course - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Same not-contributor here - the distance would be in the ballpark of 27 billion light years, according to some redshift calculators out there, e.g. https://astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html. I don't know if you accept that as a source though :) Btw, comoving and proper distance are the same for t=now, which is the time we're interested in, so you can use either distance unless you're interested in the distance at another time --2A02:908:110:3040:AC83:FDD2:A0C5:2084 (talk) 19:04, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

According to CNN, it is 28 billion light-years away, quoting study coauthor Victoria Strait, a postdoctoral research at the Cosmic Dawn Center in Copenhagen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D09:8879:31A0:C1B5:86A2:5BD3:62A (talk) 19:28, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Both numbers are technically correct but using the 28 billion distance creates confusion and is more ambiguous than the 12.9 Gyr time. Using 28 billion years creates a problem if left unexplained since this is older than the age of the universe. In Cosmology (my area of expertise) it is more common to use the flight time of the photon, that is, the 12.0 million years, since is a valid distance indicator. More precisely one would use redshift (6.2 in this case) as the distance indicator. 12.9 Gyr is the time it took the light to come to us. 28 Gyr is the time it would take the photon to travel back to the remains of Earendel but this would be true only if we freeze the universe. Since the universe will keep expanding during the travel-back time, it will actually take longer than 28 Gyr and is possible it will never reach it (depending on how dark energy evolves during that time). I suggest to stick to the 12.9 Gyr travel time of the photons, since it is a more clear interpretaion and is the umber most commonly used in media outlets (and also in the Nature paper). I would simply mention 12.9 Gyr as the time it took the light to reach us, and quote the Nature paper. chema (talk) 11:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Added the following edit to the lede => "It was determined to be approximately 27 billion light-years from Earth (6.2±01 redshift, based on CosmoCalc; comoving distance of 27 billion light-years; lookback time of 12.9 billion years). Light from the star was emitted 0.9 billion years after the Big Bang." - checking this edit/determination is welcome of course - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 19:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Aurvandill ??

Is https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurvandill a correct link? MAMware (talk) 07:06, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, why? Lithopsian (talk) 13:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Most distant known star?

The article currently states that this is 'the most distant known star'. Would 'the most distant directly imaged star' be more correct? We know of galaxies that are further away, and we know they are composed of stars, but those stars have not been directly imaged because of their great distance. This discovery is not interesting because it confirms that stars exist(ed) very far away, but rather because it allows us to see one up close and determine features such as its mass and brightness to better understand the history of star formation in the early universe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.126.235.77 (talk) 15:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps adding the word "individual", as used in the NASA writeup will convey that distinction. --Cerebral726 (talk) 15:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done Added the word "individual" as suggested - per noted NASA ref - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 15:32, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

“Single star”

It has not been established that Earandel is a single star (see the NASA press release here: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2022/record-broken-hubble-spots-farthest-star-ever-seen, “ At this point, astronomers are not able to determine if Earendel is a binary star, though most massive stars have at least one smaller companion star.”), and per the press release it is in fact likely that Earendel is not a single star given our current information. So this wording should be changed. 2603:8000:AC00:2700:4018:CBDA:138A:4FAF (talk) 05:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

This is how reliable secondary sources are referring to it: see, for example, BBC. Although NASA provides the caveat that you mentioned, it very prominently states in the first two paragraphs of the release: "the farthest individual star ever seen to date" and "single-star record holder". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.214.138 (talk) 14:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Beware chinese whispers. Get your facts from the primary peer-reviewed source (only one in this case) and use the secondary sources for establishing notability, occasionally adding colour such as interviews with the scientists involved although even apparent direct quotes can get garbled. Treat NASA press releases as no more reliable than any other non-primary source, and in my experience quite a bit worse than some. The linked BBC article, for example, puts "single star" in quotes once, presumably because they recognise that it may or may not be true but someone somewhere let the words slip, and then goes on with the rest of the article as if there is no doubt that it is a single star. The BBC likes its reputation for validating sources, fact-checking, etc., but its science reporting is uniformly poor. Lithopsian (talk) 14:52, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Maybe we should add "single or binary star" at lead? Grimes2 (talk) 14:56, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

That sounds like a good solution to me if others are happy with it 2600:1012:B01D:D24E:A46A:90E3:CFBA:D97 (talk) 23:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't read the full publication. Could also be a multiple star (trinary etc.) system. Grimes2 (talk) 23:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

We could say that it could be more than one star, without actually specifying how many there are. However, since we do not know many things about WHL0137-LS, I don't think we should make this change until more information is released. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 19:02, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

The article's title

The sources in the article seem to have established Earendel as the common name for this star. Perhaps the redirect should be usurped to become the title of this article. What do others think?--John Cline (talk) 10:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Earendel is a provisional nickname. Maybe the star will be renamed by the relevant authority. Grimes2 (talk) 11:26, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

The current article title name seems Best => '"WHL0137-LS", also known as "Earendel"- and adopts the same format as (and/or, is consistent with) the previous furthest star observed, "MACS J1149 Lensed Star 1", also known as "Icarus" - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 14:55, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

In a year or ten, it is quite likely that this star will not be widely called Earendel. Or maybe it will. There is an IAU committee for naming stars that has been quite active and might pick up on the name, but so far has concentrated on bright stars with historical names and some publicity-raising naming contests. Even where it assigns a name, only the most common are actually in widespread use. "WHL0137-LS" is a bit of a mouthful, though, let's be thankful for redirects. Lithopsian (talk) 14:57, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you for the well reasoned replies. For the most part, you have certainly convinced me. Best regards and be well.--John Cline (talk) 16:22, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 1 April 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Good participation with arguments for both sides, but no consensus at the moment. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

---

WHL0137-LS → Earendel (star) – Bold move was reverted, so off we go with the discussion then. A title in natural English, which also happen to be the WP:COMMONNAME (ex. usage NASA; discovery paper, which refers to it as "Earendal" [see the extended data figures at the end, freely available]; mainstream news like Reuters) (whether they are officially so designated by the IAU or not does not really matter, see WP:OFFICIALNAME) should be naturally preferred to an obscure technical designation. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:01, 1 April 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Spekkios (talk) 22:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• Note I wouldn't be opposed to a move to the page without the disambiguator, i.e. Earendel, if it is deemed to not be necessary. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:31, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose the suggested title move - as noted above - the current article title name seems Best => "WHL0137-LS" (accepted technical name that may stand the test of time), also known as "Earendel" (provisional nickname that may not stand the test of time) - and adopts the same format as (and/or, is consistent with) the previous farthest star observed, "MACS J1149 Lensed Star 1", also known as "Icarus" - at least, this is my reasoning at the moment - comments by other editors more than welcome of course - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 00:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

References

"may [or may not] stand the test of time" is your own personal WP:CRYSTAL. Currently, the sources are rather unanimous in using the natural [Old] English name. As for "consistency", the other star might also need a move, based on stuff like this and this (and all of the discovery coverage which of course used that name as well). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:08, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

To be clear - the technical name (ie, "WHL0137-LS") is more likely than not to remain; the provisional nickname (ie, "Earendel") is more likely, in comparison with the technical name, not to remain of course - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 01:24, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support per WP:RECOGNIZABILITY, as readers will never recognize WHL0137-LS, but they will recognize Earendel. WP:NATURAL also weakly prefers Earendel, as I find no articles that use only WHL0137-LS, but some articles that only use Earendel. It is possible that Earendel will fall out of use, but WP:CRYSTAL applies - if it does fall out of use, then we can change the article title then. BilledMammal (talk) 02:27, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support per BilledMammal's reasoning. Realistically, any normal person who would have found out about this star would have remembered its nickname over its official designation. ~Junedude433(talk) 02:48, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - The name "Earendel" [[Earendel (star)|Earendel]] is currently a "WP:Redirect" - and should be more than sufficient to direct viewers to the main "WHL0137-LS" article - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 03:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

  If redirects were "sufficient", then there wouldn't ever be a reason to move articles unless the name was grossly offensive or inaccurate. Obviously, that's not the case. There's an element of WP:SURPRISE coming from a link that says "Earendel" and ending up on some page titled "WHL0137-LS". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:51, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment My proposal is: "Earendel (WHL0137-LS)". Grimes2 (talk) 04:55, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - I am not going to !vote in this RM because I respect the collegial rationale given prior to its filing. I also respect and understand the rationale supporting the move and trust that the best outcome will ultimately prevail. I would, however, like to note a couple things. Firstly, moving the page to its common name, Earendel, does not mean that the lead's opening sentence can not begin by stating the technical name first. If it is moved, I believe that the opening statement should begin by stating the technical name first and would suggest: "WHL0137-LS, commonly known as Earendel, is ..." in such eventuality. And, Earendel (disambiguation) does not currently list a primary topic. I suspect, in time, that this article will be a strong contender for that role. Nevertheless, "the existing landscape" (current events and no ambiguity from other articles with the same name) suggests that this article, if moved, would not need the parenthetical qualifier and should instead be moved (over the redirect) to Earendel. Because this is true, and, in fact, a very common occurrence: I have usurped the redirect to target this page and facilitate any move that may come about (I reasonably expect it to stand). Should contention arise, I, as reasonably, expect to prevail in formal discussion because it is the proper end by expedient means. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 05:54, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Drbogdan. The popular name can always be adopted later, once it has become established. It's too soon IMO.Dondervogel 2 (talk) 07:04, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support. WP:NCASTRO, in addition to encouraging recognizable and unambiguous article titles, also stresses that the article title should also be easy to link to, and be optimized for general readers over "specialists". Neither editors nor general readers are likely to remember a name like "WHL0137-LS". It is simply an illegible name, and illegibile names should not be article titles, per the WP:RECOGNIZABILITY arguments in the discussion thus far. — Molly Brown (talk) 13:38, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
• Wait Reviewer #2 of the Nature article: "[N]aming of astronomical objects is sole IAU authority. Hence any reference to fantasy names "Sunrise Arc" and "Earendel" need to be removed." Grimes2 (talk) 14:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: A quick look at the international versions of this article shows that there's no general consensus there either. The French, Portuguese, Russian and Arabian articles use the code; the German, Spanish and Hebrew versions use the name; and the Persian page uses both. Herr Hartmann (talk) 14:37, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

  WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. What other language versions do is none of our concern. A sampling of actually reliable sources is provided in the nomination, You're free to look for more, but they'll likely give you the same result. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:47, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

  This discussion is not about reliable sources at all. The reliable sources all give more or less the same information: WHL0137-LS is the star's official designation and Earendel is a name chosen by the discoverers which may or may not be permanently applied later on. This discussion is about policies, and the attempt to favor one piece of information over another. Herr Hartmann (talk) 16:32, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

  This discussion is actually about reliable sources and not about what other Wikipedias (which are not reliable source, and which may have different policies from the English Wikipedia) do. WP:COMMONNAME is rather clear that [English] Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above. "in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources" - such as those I've listed, and the many more you can find. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:42, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• Wait I'm not sure about the merits of the move per se but the star is newly discovered and there's no real urgency to move the page location. Let's come back in a few weeks or a month. Protonk (talk) 18:38, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support per BilledMammal's and Junedude433's reasoning. Most people don't and won't know the stars official designation, so they'll use its nickname. That's the case for me, at least. Washing Machine (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support for reasons given by BilledMammal and Molly Brown. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:04, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support. WP:NCASTRO and per Molly Brown and BilledMammal. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 02:56, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

• Use both. Either option has obvious advantages and obvious drawbacks. WHL0137-LS is the official designation, but it is also an unnatural construct and -as noted earlier- "a mouthful". Earendel is currently "only" a nickname, but it is also the term most likely to be searched for. Making the new Title a combination of both seems to solve most of these problems. Grimes2's earlier suggestion of "Earendel (WHL0137-LS)" is one good option. My personal preference would be "WHL0137-LS (Earendel)" Herr Hartmann (talk) 09:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose and wait - once the name would be official, page can be moved. Right now it's just too soon to do anything. Artem.G (talk) 10:25, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose and wait - per Artem.G. Imagine IAU sets a different name, we would have to move again. The redirect is ok for now. Erkcan (talk) 10:51, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Neither of you has bothered to read the quotes given in the discussion so far or the linked pages (WP:COMMONNAME, WP:OFFICIALNAME), have you? As for IAU setting a different name, that is still very much WP:CRYSTAL, like the proposition that the name given by the researchers is going to be forgotten in favour of some unremarkable technical designator. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:13, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
    • The only crystal ball gazing going on here is by those guessing that the popular name will stick. We don't know yet and that is the whole point of those advocating patience. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 17:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
      • No, the only crystal ball gazing is those claiming that the popular name will disappear out of nowhere. Reliable sources (which we are supposed to follow, not ignore) all include it, sometimes even in the headline (a quick google search will show how overwhelming the common usage is - "earendal star -tolkien" (to exclude mentions of Tolkien's work, even though that shouldn't be necessary given the spelling is actually different) gives over 1 million hits, "WHL0137-LS" gives me less than 10,000). Whether that usage might possibly change, or whether it is not official (again, go read the linked policy page) is none of our concern at this time. We need to follow the reliable sources, and those, from the discovery paper down to the archetypical Littleton Gazette, all mention the "unofficial" name; which also happens to better fit the overall title criteria (including being natural English, and being recognisable and precise - now, the "official" designation might be precise and unambiguous, but it certainly isn't natural English, and to most if not nearly all of our readers, it will be unrecognisable gibberish). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
        • Use of the name in headlines is irrelevant WP:HEADLINES. And as Lithopsian points out below, all current news-articles are based on the same press-release, so the sheer number of them does not increase their reliability. Herr Hartmann (talk) 20:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
          • Not only the headlines but also the body of the sources use it, so your argument is irrelevant on top of already being unhelpful (the use of the name in headlines demonstrates it is a common name and that readers would likely search for it using that, instead of some obscure non-descript technical designation). all are based on the same press-release has no bearing on the fact that most readers will know it by that name, even if that comment was an accurate summary. But given that this is a rather uncharitable report (are you going to say the Nature paper is based on the NASA release? Have you even read all the difference sources - they are all substantially different that they're clearly not just a copy of the same press release published in multiple places: take a look at [1] and then at [2] (which has plenty of unique content not reported in the NASA release) or the Reuters piece (which includes content quoted form the author which does not appear in either of the previous ones). In fact, "rather uncharitable" is a rather generous description of the claim that these are "all the same press release". Upon closer inspection, that claim is, in fact, outright false. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

            Dear RandomCanadian, you were partially correct that I had not read the linked WP:*, though I had gone through the discussion. Yet, your negative way of saying things ("neither of you has bothered to read"), insinuating people that you don't know, does not really help your case. I have been on wikipedia for over 18 years, and as the common sense rules gradually got codified, some people started to forget the fundamental rule: WP:AFG. Let's chill. In the grand scheme of things, at such a wonderful place like wikipedia, amongst people who care about sharing and building something together, it really does not matter whether the article's name is this or that, given that there is already a redirect set. Having read all the linked WP:* after your warning, I still disagree with your interpretation of the rules, and don't believe that the renaming of the article at this time is meaningful, but I also would not mind if the article is moved the way you advocate. I respect my fellow wikipedians. Erkcan (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

    • "Neither of you has bothered to read..." Not sure what the point of this comment was. Protonk (talk) 16:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Using alphanumeric designation isn't ideal, but using an unofficial and likely fleeting proper name is even less ideal. We already have a redirect Earendel (star) and a mention in the relevant dab page, that seems sufficient for the many people who will be coming here searching by the name. This discussion arises repeatedly for stars and other astronomical objects; people get very excited for a few days, then most of the time the name slips out of use, while the designation is "for life". If not, then there is nothing to stop us renaming the article next month or next year. Right now we have a single primary source and hundreds of copies of a press release on different websites; just one other independent source would be a better starting point for this discussion. Something from the IAU nomenclature committee would be even better, but it isn't really the sort of object they've focused on so far. Lithopsian (talk) 12:56, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support as per BilledMammal. Tisnec (talk) 21:21, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Assuming the the statement "I find no articles that use only WHL0137-LS, but some articles that only use Earendel" is true, sounds like that is the better name, and the ones that more readers will be searching on and think of as the name of the entity. We are a popular encyclopedia rather than a technical one -- we include lots of highly technical info, but mostly pitched to our readership which is mostly non-specialist. Anyway "Earendel" sticks in the reader's mind because it is more poetic, and while "WHL0137-LS" is more scientific, it doesn't say anywhere that science is better than poetry. We ourselves are a literary publication after all. Herostratus (talk) 01:25, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

  Just for the avoidance of doubt, here is such a source. And another (which uses the technical designation for the cluster causing the gravitational lensing, but not for the star). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: A few places with two names have a slash separating the two names. Examples would include Aoraki / Mt Cook and Milford Sound / Piopiotahi. Although using the slash to separate the two names is an option, I would prefer using brackets for something like WHL0137-LS (Earendel) instead. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 13:18, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  FWIW - for some reason, the ending, ")", seems to be left out/dropped, when copy-pasting the Wikipedia link of such article titles to EMail programs, FaceBook and other programs in my experiences over the years - so, the "WHL0137-LS / Earendel" title name may be better than "WHL0137-LS (Earendel)", if such title names are seriously considered imo - nonetheless - as before, I prefer, for reasons noted in my comments above, the current original article title (ie, "WHL0137-LS") instead of course - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 15:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose and wait. New astronomical discoveries get a flurry of press coverage and then most people forget about them. Names used in press releases don't necessarily stick, and the long term significance of this star is uncertain (who is going to care about it when an even more distant star is discovered?). We didn't move the most distant object that has had a space probe visit it to the name used in a press release (Talk:486958_Arrokoth/Archive_1#Requested_move_of_article_to_different_name_(request_as_of_3_January_2019). After cycling through several nicknames for a newly discovered feature on Pluto, Wikipedia fairly quickly settled on the official name once it was proposed (Talk:Tombaugh_Regio#Requested_move_16_July_2015). Plantdrew (talk) 21:38, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
  • "We didn't move the other ones, so this one shouldn't be moved" is a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy. COMMONNAME is evidently something that can change over time. I'll note that of the recent coverage which mentioned the previous record holder, there were clear examples of using "Icarus" and not whatever the unremarkable string of letters and numbers it was. In this case there are not "several nicknames", there is one. Dismissing the name as being "used in press releases" isn't a good argument either. It was used in plenty of non-press-release stuff (such as already given above), and even is still being used in slightly more recent writings (ex. [3]). Currently, the commonly-recognisable name is "Earendel", not WHL[whatever]. If that changes later, there's nothing preventing a new move at that point. WP:OFFICIALNAME explicitly tells that simply because something is (or isn't) the official name does not make it the proper title for an article. It's TNT, not 2-Methyl-1,3,5-trinitrobenzene (even though the latter is the preferred, "official" name). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: No consensus seems to have been reached, with several people supporting, opposing and also saying that we should wait. If in the end no consensus is reached, will the title of the article stay the name? Or will this discussion keep going until we get a consensus? InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 19:12, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
  • FWIW - Seems "WP:THREEOUTCOMES" may be helpful - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose: Pretty much as stated by the others here; I think this is the same issue with somebody naming the M87 black hole as "Powehi" despite not reaching to a consensus with the wider astronomical community. As it says, even with the use of a real name, it is better to stick with the technical one. I also oppose the notion that we are a just a mere literary publication that follows what the readers want - we are after formality. It will die down as long as most astronomers don't recognize it as such; public interest in the star also died down by this point and it would no longer be a smart move to use the popularity card as an argument to use "Earendel." SkyFlubbler (talk) 08:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The template

@IJBall and Drbogdan: The current version is still problematic. The reference should come at the end of the information it supports, not in the middle (in between "billion" and the unit). A simple solution would be to add a dist_ref parameter, I'll try to fix that up in my sandbox. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:01, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Verb tense

Using present simple.

If the star has died out, shouldn't we use the past to talk about it since it no longer exists? Maxime12346 (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Most of the article is already written in past tense when referring to the star, except for the first line. It is still proper grammar to say that it "is" the most distant known single star because it currently holds this record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D09:8879:31A0:5925:FCD0:EEF2:3664 (talk) 00:56, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

We can see it now (and probably tomorrow), so "is" seems appropriate. All this talk about what may or may not "have happened to it" is meaningless in the context of relativity, and we should be very careful about how we phrase such speculations to avoid misleading statements. We (astronomers) talk about what we can observe in the present tense, simply because what we can't observe is irrelevant, and not just in a "the cheque is in the post" kind of way. Lithopsian (talk) 13:26, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

So, perhaps the supernova sentence should be changed to present tense as well?

"Due to its large mass, the star is likely to explode as a supernova just a few million years after forming."

Not sure if it's necessary or useful to add that this has already happened. Herr Hartmann (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Agree. Grimes2 (talk) 22:37, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

As a non-astronomer, I find the current sentence confusing. Using the phrase "likely to have exploded" is a prediction, correct, but it makes more sense to me than using the present simple, when the article is talking about star formation over 12 billion years ago. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:04, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

We could attach a Note to that sentence to explain that the supernova would certainly have already happened. I think any attempt to clarify this within the main body if the article would disrupt the text flow too much. Herr Hartmann (talk) 17:11, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I have just added this note. If someone with more scientific background knowledge than myself could look over that statement and possibly improve it's wording, that would be appreciated. Herr Hartmann (talk) 09:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

But you can't observe a supernova, you observe a star. The question is: use future or past tense. For this speculation we should use the past. Grimes2 (talk) 09:19, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Why can't you observe a supernova? It ought to be quite visible, if you happen to look at the right spot at the right time. And if we assume the star's existence to be a thing of the presence, then it's destruction can not possibly be a thing of the past. Herr Hartmann (talk) 09:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Misunderstanding: You can't observe the supernova of Earendel. The likely event is in the future (from the observation standpoint) or in the past. Grimes2 (talk) 09:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I think the current wording represents both options quite well. "Likely to explode" is grammatically present, but it predicts a future event. And the fact that it's actually a past event is explained in the note. Herr Hartmann (talk) 10:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

The addition of a note seems to me to be an acknowledgement that the use of the present simple in this case, in the context of an article for general readers, is likely to be confusing. But rather than just change the tense and use the phrase "is likely to have exploded", the proposal now is to keep the present simple and add a note to clarify it. If we use the phrase "is likely to have exploded" we won't need the note. The note is there just to shore up the use of the present simple. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:44, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I have an additional question: if the present simple is to be used, shouldn't it be used consistently in this paragraph? The opening sentence reads: "Earendel is likely to have between 50 and 100 solar masses." Why is that usage of "likely to have" acceptable? Why is it not in the present simple, since it is just as much a prediction/estimate as the comment about supernova status. If the choice is to use the present simple, then shouldn't it read: "Earendel is likely to be between 50 and 100 solar masses." As mentioned, I don't think the present simple is useful here to a general reader, but if it is to be used, it should be used consistently. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:44, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

"Earendel has between 50 and 100 solar masses according to calculations (or an estimation) by the discoverer." Grimes2 (talk) 13:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

In it's current form, the article does consistently use the present tense. It's "likely to have;" not "to have had" or "to have been." This entire discussion bagan with the assumption that, if the supernova already occurred, the whole article ought to be written in the past tense. I think by now it has been made clear that this is not the case. Thus, if the present tense is to be used, it applies to the possible destruction as well. Basically, "likely to have X solar masses" and "likely to explode" are both static properties; and apparently it is scientifically correct to present them as current properties. The note is there to explain the use of the present tense for all the star's properties, it is only attached to the supernova sentence because this is the most likely source of confusion. Herr Hartmann (talk) 13:19, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

It would seem to make more sense to use the tense according to the reference frame of the object the article is about, and which is/was doing the shining. Indeed the article slips into the star's reference frame when it says that "The light detected from Earendel was emitted 900 million years after the Big Bang", a time when neither Earth nor the sun nor even the Milky Way existed. One doesn't say that lightning is currently striking because one still hears the thunder. We do say that it takes hours or days for Earth to receive transmissions from probes in the outer solar system, even though from Earth's perspective the probe appears to be transmitting exactly at the time we receive the transmission. Perhaps a compromise would be to say that "the star was likely to explode" since I think everyone can agree that the star did exist in the past, without speculating whether it has actually exploded. Miraculouschaos (talk) 02:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

It might seem to make more sense, but it is pure speculation to present something unobservable as "current". It is precisely because there is no way to know what is happening in the star's reference frame that we discuss it from our own reference frame, the only one where we can make observations. This is not something purely semantic, it is hard physics caused by the light speed limit. Your lightning analogy is inappropriate because we can observe that the lightning bolt is over even while hearing the thunder. Even there we can only observe the lightning bolt once the light arrives after a tiny time interval. Note that again this is not just sophistry, even if there is another closer observer, they can't give us any more up-to-date information because it will take them longer to reach us than the light itself. Lithopsian (talk) 16:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

This star does not exist any more

Is there a problem with the tense of this article? The section "Physical properties" says that the light detected from Earendel was emitted 12.9 billion years ago; and that "the star is likely to explode as a supernova just a few million years after forming". That means that this star in fact exploded over 12 billion years ago, and no longer exists. Should the tense of the article reflect that? Is there a Wikipedia policy on this, or an astronomical convention? --MrStoofer (talk) 09:08, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

See Talk: "Using present simple" section. Grimes2 (talk) 09:47, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the light is only just reaching earth, so relative to us the star is currently "shining". Talking about distant events and working backwards, accounting for all cosmological factors would be more confusing, and isn't convention. Placebodoc (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Just an example, most of the stars visible to the naked eye are more light years away than years most of us have lived. Yet, other than an occasional sensationalistic puff piece, we generally refer to them in the present tense when we observe them or calculated their properties. Physicists, when it is relevant, tend to refer to events "when they happen" but with (hopefully) full awareness of the implications of the relativity of simultaneity - this is pragmatic wrt their locations and that of the events they observe. Astronomers are in a somewhat unique position (sic) of being in a fixed location at a relativistically-large distance from the events they observe. Attempting to always reconcile observations with true 4D spacetime coordinates and establishing order and causality of events would be a nightmare. So astronomers by convention refer to events as happening when they are observed, and paradoxes are kept to a minimum. Except occasionally when journalists poke them for a good headline! Lithopsian (talk) 16:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I understand that. However, this article has introduced the possibility that the star has already gone nova. That is inherently a prediction, and in an article intended for a general readership, using the present tense for a likely past event can be confusing. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Do we need to report a hypothetical concrete event in past/present? We could say: Massive stars of >50 solar masses have a lifetime of a few million years. They can explode as a supernova. Grimes2 (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Unless it's linked to this star, why is that statement there? Again, speaking as a non-astronomer; the reason for putting that statement in, without linking it to this star, may not be immediately apparent to a general reader. Have to make the connection between the solar mass in the general statement, and this particular star. If the reason for the statement is to make the point that this star would likely go nova, why not say it, rather than an elliptical reference that requires the reader to draw a conclusion? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Is it possible to merge this topic and "Using present simple" into one? Having the discussion spread out over two topics is kind of a hassle. Herr Hartmann (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

solution to the tense issue

@Maxime12346, Lithopsian, Herr Hartmann, Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, Grimes2, MrStoofer, and RandomCanadian: I had read this book about galaxies a long ago. The author of the book had foreseen such a situation. There are lots of examples of the exact tense that we need for this article. Here is a link to an excerpt from that said book. But unfortunately, the excerpt doesn't give any examples, you guys will have find online/refer to the original work. —usernamekiran (talk) 23:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

found some (but not all) info at this fandom —usernamekiran (talk) 23:58, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Obviously a good laugh; the Hitchikers guide's a classic. As far as we are concerned, however, the simple solution is to use verb tense according to the frame of reference from which we are observing the object, i.e. present day earth. So the star "is" currently shining" and will (within a few million years) explode into a supernova or other interesting astronomic phenomenon. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

but if we use our simplistic tense(s), then it would be like disrespecting all the hardwork of Dr. Streetmentioner —usernamekiran (talk) 00:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Earendel is possibly a population III star, meaning it contains almost no elements other than primordial hydrogen and helium.

I suggest to remove this sentence. It gives the impression that Earendel has a good chance of being a Pop III star, which is not true. Earendel is probably not a Pop III star. It may be a Pop II (2nd generation) star but unlikely a Pop III (1st generation). Pop III stars are expected to form much earlier (approx 500 million years earlier) on and live only a few million years. JWST will offer more clues about the true nature of Earendel (Pop II vs Pop III) but as of now, with current data the sentence above is more than questionable. I would instead mention that Earendel could potentially be a Pop III star, but this is unlikely and quote the authors which in the Nature paper say "...the probability of Earendel being a zero-metallicity population III star is low,..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chemolari (talk • contribs) 11:43, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

The article is changing quickly: I see "Although unlikely, Earendel has a small probability of being a population III star, meaning it contains almost no elements other than primordial hydrogen and helium" which I think is a good summary and not given undue prominence in the article. I could quibble slightly with the grammar, but I'm sure it will come good. Lithopsian (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Quoted directly from the source cited for the pop. III statement: "If follow-up studies find that Earendel is only made up of primordial hydrogen and helium, it would be the first evidence for the legendary Population III stars, which are hypothesized to be the very first stars born after the big bang." This sounds extremely hypothetical, which again raises the question whether this sentence should be included at all. Herr Hartmann (talk) 20:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

"ripple in spacetime"

It is true that the Hubble people say the star "is positioned along a ripple in spacetime that gives it extreme magnification". However, the Hubble people don't necessary communicate concepts perfectly, nor (I would guess) are they immune from gee-whizism same as anybody.

I find this confusing. Is there an actual difference in... not just space, but spacetime, I guess... such that, say, time behaves differently in some way around this star? Or space -- is it possible to travel between two points without going thru the intervening space, or something, in the area of this star?

I don't think so... I think it's just gravitation lensing, which is sort of mundane. My spyglass bends light to make things seem closer too, I wouldn't describe it as making a ripple in spacetime. Unless we can work in a better explanation I'm inclined to remove this confusing phrase. Herostratus (talk) 01:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand (I'm no astronomer): Its a Gravitational wave that causes the lensing effect. It has nothing to do with an optical lens out of glass. Grimes2 (talk) 08:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

The way I understand it (I'm not an astronomer either), for gravitational lensing to occur, the "ripple" must be located on a direct line in between the observer (Earth) and the object (in this case: Earendel). So, the description of Earendel's position "along the ripple" seems to be over-simplified to the point of being completely wrong. Herr Hartmann (talk) 10:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

It is a poor choice of words to describe what is happening. The star itself is (was) not positioned at or near any special spacetime feature that could be described as a ripple. At best, the visible image of the star falls on an arc which is a gravitationally-lensed image of a star cluster, but still a stretch to call that a ripple in spacetime. Lithopsian (talk) 10:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia article for nicknames of astronomical objects

Don't know if someone else already created such an article (??). Would be interesting to see an alphabetic list of this sort of names, such as WHL0137-LS's nickname Earendel. DannyCaes (talk) 13:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

No nicknames, but List of proper names of stars (IAU) Grimes2 (talk) 13:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

That's indeed an interesting list (rather odd new starnames since 2019!), although I'm looking for a huge alphabetic list full of (nick)names such as (for example): Bear Paw Galaxy or Lemon Slice Nebula. DannyCaes (talk) 14:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

How is 28 billion lightyears distance possible?

Given the fact that at the time of the big bang the coordinates of Aerendel and the coordinates of earth coincided, Aerendel must have had a speed of twice the speed of light (relative lo an earth observer) to reach a distance of 28 billion lightyears in 14 billion years. How can this be if special relativity does not allow a relative speed of more than the speed of light? 92.109.166.101 (talk) 12:05, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• See Comoving and proper distances and Expansion of the universe. To quote the latter "As the spatial part of the universe's spacetime metric increases in scale, objects become more distant from one another at ever-increasing speeds. While objects within space cannot travel faster than light, this limitation does not apply to the effects of changes in the metric itself." Black Kite (talk) 12:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Magnification line in image

The term "magnification line" (see dashed line in image) should be explained, maybe in a corresponding article. Especially together with the loop in that line an explanation is IMHO necessary. At least I found no easy available explanation. 2001:16B8:2651:B000:F016:A915:60FC:5C4F (talk) 21:10, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

JWST image

JWST have published an image of the star. Thread here: [4] close-up comparison here: [5] (Hubble left, JWST right; red line indicates). Fig (talk) 10:48, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Star?

The article claims this is the most distant imaged star snd also claims it could become a supernova. But it should explain how we know it's not actually (or at least was 13 billion years ago) a star and not a supernova? In other words, if supernovas only last a few months and this was first seen years ago it cannot be a supernova. But if it's actually just a star I find it unlikely that it could be brighter than the rest of its host galaxy, even if that galaxy is smeared out by the lensing. Paulhummerman (talk) 19:27, 30 August 2023 (UTC)