Talk:List of nearest galaxies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Satellites? 2 Merge to Local Group 3 Distances 4 Status

[edit] Satellites?

What does it mean that a galaxy is a satellite of another? Rmhermen 15:05, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

• It means that that galaxy orbits the galaxy it is a satellite of. 132.205.64.202 06:53, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Merge to Local Group

• OPPOSE a list is useful by itself, and would clutter the Local Group article. And not everything on the list need be a Local Group member132.205.45.110 22:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • But there are all already listed on the Local Group page - why duplicate the lists? -- ALoan (Talk) 22:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The list of nearest galaxies does serve a purpose and unless it can be merged without clutter to the Local Group article I'd say leave it seperated.--Kalsermar 01:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Only reason to keep this article is to considerably expand the list to include galaxies outside the Local group. Or, alternatively rename List of nearest galaxies to List of Local group galaxies.--Jyril 13:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Currently this list include only name, distance, and notes. Diameter and type should also be included, maybe other information too. In that case, there's no reason for merge anymore.--Jyril 08:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• I suppose it is currently "list of Local Group galaxies by distance" -- ALoan (Talk) 14:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• I agree with ALoan DaMatriX 19:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, I have added galaxies out to the fringes of the Local Group (and a few beyond). Ardric47 05:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Distances

I'm going to use distances from SEDS at [1] instead of the unsourced ones here unless an explanation or source is available in the individual article. I will preserve old values in comments; they can be reinstated if better information is found. Ardric47 02:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Please do not use data from SEDS. With a few exceptions, SEDS does not reference its sources of information. Their data appear to be highly inaccurate and misleading. George J. Bendo 17:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Status

It doesn't seem to me that there's any reason to merge this, but I'm not sure what the procedure is for taking down the template. Also, how long should this list get? The nearest 100 galaxies? The nearest 200? Out to a certain distance? Ardric47 05:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

What's the difference how long this gets? If someone wants to keep adding more items, let him. Nobody has to read it. B00P 05:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I truncated the list to 100. The list should be readable and should be a sane length. At greater distances, it is likely to be incomplete. It also becomes inane if it is too long, as many galaxies will be listed at the same distance. Moreover, who is interested in which galaxy is the 157th closest? George J. Bendo 07:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

George J. Bendo has performed the valuable service of removing information from Wikipedia because he, personally, isn't interested, and therefore feels that no one else should be either. That someone else went to the trouble of gathering it in the first place was of no consequence. I'm sure that he'll be delighted when I cut the list to the closest five because who is interested in which galaxy is the 7th closest? B00P 17:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I had no idea that anyone else was working on this page. If you dislike my edits and if you really think the extra information is important, you can always revert my edits or look at old versions of the page and replace the information. Still, going past 100 becomes unwieldly, and truncation at some point makes sense. Why duplicate the Nearby Galaxies Catalog? George J. Bendo 19:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how "important" it is, but I see no urgent reason to eliminate it. I have reformatted the table (restoring the cut items), with the design of making it easier to read and intend to install it soon. B00P 08:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I have also read on my talk page that you do not want to have to replace items in the table if they suddenly appear to cross an arbitrary cut-off line (for example, if a galaxy moves from 107th closest to 88th closest). For that reason, I can understand why items should not be cut from Wikipedia altogether. May I suggest storing cut items on this page instead?

Also, you may want to get the table reviewed by other people before applying it first. It would probably be worthwhile including RA, Dec, redshift, and morphological type, and possibly apparent magnitude or optical disk size. You may be interested in what I have done with groups. See M94 Group, M96 Group, and M109 Group, for example. George J. Bendo 08:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

If enough readers don't like the new layout and post complaints here, I'll revert it myself. B00P 21:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)