Talk:NGC 5195

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Astronomy Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to astronomy, and WikiProject Astronomical Objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
Help with this template This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

I have expanded the article, but I'll leave the notice there since I think it still hasn't reached full length. Funnybunny (^talk/_{Counter Vandalism Unit}) 01:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Classification per NED is weird

I do not understand NED's result.

The Third Reference Catalogue (RC3) gives the Hubble type as I0 pec. (NED has a link labeled "RC3 data" on its search results underneath the thumbnail image. This leads to NED's copy of the RC3 data. It may be incomprehensible unless you are used to reading the entries.) Hyperleda (also linked under the thumbnail on the NED search results page) gives the type as SBa (in another incomprehensible form). It might be appropriate to leave it blank, as no one has reached any clear consensus. (If I had to assign a Hubble type, I would go with E or I0.) Dr. Submillimeter 18:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contradict warning

I placed the "contradict" warning on NGC 5195 because various statements in the Wikipedia article describe it as spiral, irregular, or lenticular. A more verbose description of the morphology is needed; I may attempt to add one in the next month. Dr. Submillimeter 15:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleared Contradiction

I re-worked the phrasing to keep it consistent as a barred lenticular (just another name for SB0), but noted that some consider it irregular. Admittedly, its pretty hard to judge, but most of the data for wikipedia articles comes from NASA/IPAC ...

Eteq 03:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I used better references to demonstrate that the galaxy is difficult to classify. As indicated in the discussion further up in this page, the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database produced strange results for this galaxy that were not consistent with other references. It should not have been relied upon for the discussion on morphology in this article. Dr. Submillimeter 10:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)