Talk:Zeta Puppis

a doi for the reference would be nice!

Original research[edit]

References for the hypotheses about the future of this star and the comparisons to Sol would help this article. Some may be reasonably derived from published data, but this is not clear to lay readers; we could do with at least a few notes to show the working. Stuff like "X will happen" needs proof. GreenReaper (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been asked for clarification:

The article makes several assertions and forward-looking statements. These assertions may be both entertaining and true, but it is not clear to the reader what evidence supports them. Wikipedia articles must be based on the works and authority of published third parties, not original research.
It may be possible for an educated person with a knowledge of physics and mathematics to derive some assertions from the facts. This is not sufficient. Verifiability means that any reader should be able to verify it, ideally by finding an inline citation to a published work by a relevant authority who makes this exact statement. See Wikipedia:Common knowledge and Wikipedia:No original research#Routine calculations.
Any calculation (e.g. would heat the Earth to an incredible 6100 K) which cannot be cited to a particular source should have a footnote explaining it in sufficient detail for a layperson to follow. Failing that, it should be removed.
Many assertions appear to be drawn from this article. The author appears to be an authority in the field, but the citation should be provided with information about them and the work (using something like {{cite web}}). It should also be cited every time it is used to back up a fact or assertion, not just the first time. Otherwise, it is unclear which facts it is intended to support. See Help:Footnotes and Wikipedia:Footnotes for ways to do this neatly.

The article has some great writing, but it is not a good article yet. Going through this article line by line to properly source, modify or remove each assertion of fact will be a big start. GreenReaper (talk) 23:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eeehh, far from good article. Some similes bug me, such as "but if it were placed at the center of our Solar System,"... like the mad ramblings such as "if Saturn was floating in a huge ocean" ... what kind of ocean would that be? ... said: Rursus (bork²) 16:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I commented away the worst mad speculations. If you wish to restore it you can remove . Still remains does, what it will look like at Sirius'es place and how far a planet must be from Naos in order for Naos to be as bright as Sun as seen from Earth. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 16:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still remaining speculations that should be carefully scrutinized and become cited (or corrected): that Naos ends up as a M5 (why not M4, M6 or a carbon star?), that it's end condition before collapsing will be red, and not blue like f.ex. SN 1987A, and that it really will end as a hypernova and not an ordinary supernova. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 16:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm rather curious about how some of the data in the article doesn't match up with the infobox information, (like the star's mass, purported to be 59s in the article and 64s in the box) and I think some of the claims about its future evolution are possibly dubious; Not all stars turn red at some point in their lifetime, particularly class-O stars of very high mass, which instead become Luminous Blue Variable stars, shifting only as low as into the yellow/yellow-white range. (~6000K) As far as I've read, there is little solid knowledge about the eventual fate of such stars, though from there they could go to being Wolf-Rayet later, with no single hypothesis for the star's demise afterward. Hence, I'm questioning if perhaps that those entire portions should be removed in accordance with WP:NOR if it's not cited soon; those portions sound very much like original research to me. Nottheking (talk) 06:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox should be more current. Naos was affected by a recent re-evaluation of Hipparcos data and its distance was reduced, hence its luminosity also was. Wayne Hardman (talk) 00:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article has conflicting data in the star's physical parameters. The temperature is given as both 39000 and 42400 kelvin in different parts of the article, and the mass is given as 40 solar masses here but as 59 in

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_massive_stars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.102.122 (talk) 15:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some inaccuracies[edit]

As I'm not native in English, I do not edit this article, but I try to give a note. In current version of this article, there is a sentence "The spectral class of O4 means this is one of the hottest, and most luminous, stars visible to the naked eye." Okay. O4 classification does not mean that a star is visible to the naked eye. It might classify temperature, size and chemical elements of a star, but not its distance. If this star is teleported to other side of the Milky Way, it is not visible to naked eye (maybe it is not visible even to Hubble) but its spectral classification is still O4.

Oh yes, its magnitude is 2.2 so it is by definition visible to naked eye 89.166.13.36 (talk) 12:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation[edit]

Can someone check the pronunciation? I can't access the OED, the IAU file doesn't seem to actually list pronunciations, and other sources I'm seeing give something like "NOWSS", which would make sense, considering the Greek origin. The current pronunciation listed here seems to be based on the word meaning "temple", not "ship", which the star is actually named after. BlueSkinnyJeans (talk) 07:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This may clarify? Lithopsian (talk) 14:56, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Which one of those sources do you think would be the best to use for the article? The one with audio (Strong's Concordance) more clearly shows that the word meaning "ship" is more like "NOWSS". Would it be sufficient? BlueSkinnyJeans (talk) 17:10, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic name translation[edit]

In the names of other stars (Gamma Velorum, Beta Centauri etc.) the Arabic 'suhail' and 'hadar' are translated as 'plain' and 'grounded' or 'settled', respectively, likely referring to the low rise of southern stars from the northern horizon. Here it's listed as 'possibly meaning' 'roaring bright one', without a source. Google Translate gives something similar to this when you plug in the Arabic script, so someone probably made a mistake and included a spurious translation. There's no source for the Arabic name itself either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.69.231.97 (talk) 07:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]