Talk:List of nearest galaxies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Astronomy This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to astronomy.
List This article has been rated as list-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Satellites?

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

it orbits it like a satellite Alexander110 (talk) 05:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge to Local Group

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
  • 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)
  • Oppose - The gravitationally bound system of the Milky Way and its satellite galaxies is a separate subject from determining the distances to nearby galaxies. (Also note that the list of nearest galaxies should probably be revised partly using the distance measurements by Karachentsev et al. I was considering doing this after I finished work on the list of NGC objects.) Dr. Submillimeter 07:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

In its current state I see no reason that this should be merged with the Milky Way satellite article unless also merged with the Andromeda Galaxy satellite article. It appears that the debate ceased long ago any way so I suggest that the tag be removed. FrunkSpace (talk) 11:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


[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 layout and post complaints here, I'll revert it myself. B00P 21:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
This list can actually get as long as it needs to be and still be readable. All it needs is some organization, which may be hard to do in tabular format. I'm seeing galaxies from different clusters within the Local Group and others outside the Local Group. One suggestion I'd like to make is to go to a more classifying format. List the groups, then any clusters within them that have listed galaxies. If a galaxy is known to have system, list its known satellites under it. Maybe indent by a column for each level, provide table of contents to allow users to jump through the list and of course with each entry list all the current fields. Plynch22 01:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
That proposal is actually very messy in practice. Some nearby galaxy groups are actually only very weakly gravitationally bound (see the Sculptor Group, for example). Moreover, some galaxies do not appear to be gravitationally bound to any nearby groups. (Also, Plynch22 misused the word "cluster". Please check the use of the term and use it more carefully.)
I was thinking about revising the article using the data from the Karachentsev papers myself. I also wanted to add columns for right ascension, declination, redshift, and morphological type. Dr. Submillimeter 08:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LMC and SMC not satellites?

i recently read in this New Scientist article that the magellanic clouds may not be satellites, because they are moving too quickly. perhaps the comments in the list should reflect this? Mlm42 09:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

After years of research, Karachentsev (2005) indicated that the LMC and SMC are gravitationally bound. The results in the New Scientist article are newer, but the reference is not a peer-reviewd journal aritcle. A corresponding peer-reviewed journal article should be found for this information. Moreover, even if this has been published, it should still be confirmed. From my experience, some of these assessments about the dynamics of objects near the Milky Way can be quite tricky. Ultimately, the discussion would be so lengthy that it could take up too much space. (Writing Wikipedia articles by press release generally does not work well.) Dr. Submillimeter 09:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
but shouldn't the articles somehow reflect the fact that it isn't proven that they are satellite galaxies? if the assessments of the dynamics are tricky, that tells me that claims regarding when things are or aren't gravitationally bound are probably more conjecture-with-some-evidence than generally-accepted-fact.. i don't know much about it, but i would prefer not to have the wool pulled over my eyes! :) Mlm42 15:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
This is beyond the scope of this list. I suggest discussing the topic at Large Magellanic Cloud and Small Magellanic Cloud. Remove the reference to the LMC and SMC as "satellite galaxies" if it really bothers you (although they probably are satellite galaxies). Dr. Submillimeter 07:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Milky Way Galaxy

Would it not be correct that the Milky Way Galaxy is a satellite of the Milky Way? If yes then I suggest that said information is added to the notes like all the other Milky Way dwarfs. FrunkSpace (talk) 10:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Milky Way = Milky Way Galaxy = our galaxy. The same thing cannot be the satellite itself. — Chesnok (talk) 19:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] mergefrom Milky Way's satellite galaxies

  • Oppose it could easily go to Local Group or a new article about the Milky Way subgroup instead. 70.55.84.168 (talk) 12:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Rather than merging here, it would do better as a table within the "Environment" section of Milky Way article itself. If not that, then leave it alone. B00P (talk) 23:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Centaurus A/M83 group of galaxies

Don't understand why the omission of these galaxies, so I am plugging them in. Alexander110 (talk) 05:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)