Talk:AT 2017gfo

	Astronomy portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy
	This redirect is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.

Physics

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics

Merge request

I will second the suggestion to merge this page with GW170817 and GRB 170817A, under GW170817. These are all different identifiers for the same event. I choose GW170817 for reasons of priority (that was the first observation), dependency (the kilonova would not have been observed without the GW observations), and the overall importance of gravitational waves to science. EMS | Talk 19:10, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EMS: I don't think anyone seriously disagrees with the merge. It's just a matter of someone volunteering to do the actual work. And who can be arsed to do a half-decent job of it. (Three {{Merge}} templates without a |discuss= parameter to direct discussion to a common place is not encouraging. But notice I'm not fixing it either; I'm busy with other things ATM and just overspent my Wikipedia time budget on Permuted congruential generator.) 104.153.72.218 (talk) 10:25, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done - added code to {{Merge}} templates in "GW170817", "GRB 170817A" and "AT 2017gfo" articles => "|discuss=Talk:AT 2017gfo#Merge request discussion" - per "Template:Merge" - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW - seems more worthy imo atm to merge the "GW170817", "GRB 170817A" and "AT 2017gfo" articles only if there are published studies in the WP:RS (particularly, the settled responsible scientific literature) to specifically support the notion that "GW170817", "GRB 170817A" and "AT 2017gfo" are truly from the exact same event/instance - and not be, by some (perhaps unlikely?) coincidence, from some other separate events/instances instead - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:07, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Drbogdan: The fact that they're the same is basically the entire point of the main ApJ paper Here's the abstract:

On 2017 August 17 a binary neutron star coalescence candidate (later designated GW170817) with merger time 12:41:04 UTC was observed through gravitational waves by the Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo detectors. The Fermi Gamma-ray Burst Monitor independently detected a gamma-ray burst (GRB 170817A) with a time delay of ~1.7 s with respect to the merger time. From the gravitational-wave signal, the source was initially localized to a sky region of 31 deg² at a luminosity distance of ~40+8
−8 Mpc and with component masses consistent with neutron stars. The component masses were later measured to be in the range 0.86 to 2.26 M_☉. An extensive observing campaign was launched across the electromagnetic spectrum leading to the discovery of a bright optical transient (SSS17a, now with the IAU identification of AT 2017gfo) in NGC 4993 (at ~40 Mpc) less than 11 hours after the merger by the One- Meter, Two Hemisphere (1M2H) team using the 1 m Swope Telescope. The optical transient was independently detected by multiple teams within an hour. Subsequent observations targeted the object and its environment. Early ultraviolet observations revealed a blue transient that faded within 48 hours. Optical and infrared observations showed a redward evolution over ∼10 days. Following early non-detections, X-ray and radio emission were discovered at the transient’s position ~9 and ~16 days, respectively, after the merger. Both the X-ray and radio emission likely arise from a physical process that is distinct from the one that generates the UV/optical/near-infrared emission. No ultra-high-energy gamma-rays and no neutrino candidates consistent with the source were found in follow-up searches. These observations support the hypothesis that GW170817 was produced by the merger of two neutron stars in NGC4993 followed by a short gamma-ray burst (GRB 170817A) and a kilonova/macronova powered by the radioactive decay of r-process nuclei synthesized in the ejecta.

Is that not quite clear enough? 104.153.72.218 (talk) 16:06, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments - and copy of the ApJ abstract - yes - agreed - but thought I'd present my concerns nonetheless - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:19, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is effectively merged. GW170817 describes the GRB and optical transient. GRB 170817A in particular is very brief and its hard to see what else could be in there that isn't in the "parent" now. AT 2017gfo is a little longer, but the major content seems to be in GW170817 although a bit scattered through several sections. I think it is time to just turn the two stubs into redirects and edit a couple of wikilinks into bold terms. Lithopsian (talk) 20:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]