Talk:Hanny's Voorwerp

Largest emission nebula?

Is this object the largest known emission nebula? 24.13.179.140 (talk) 17:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation?

Are there any signs of consensus on how this is going to be generally pronounced? The word 'Voorwerp' is rendered in Dutch - as far as I know - something like 'foor-vairp', but I imagine it'll soon wind up sounding as bad as 'a-par-thide' ((c) Stevie Wonder) in general circles.

So - can anyone add the proper phonetics near the title? It might help stem the tide. --Cdavis999 (talk) 15:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

M'kay - as no-one more knowledgeable about IPA is able to step up, I have tried to do it myself, rendering the word as /ˌfʊər.vɛərp/ - pretty close if I read the IPA guide correctly.

I do hope someone can cast an expert eye over this and fix any faults before it becomes consensus reality. --Cdavis999 (talk) 14:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Dutch person here. The IPA transcription as it is now is roughly correct, but pronounced with a huge English accent. The more proper transcription would be ˈhɑnˌnis ˈvoːrˌʋɛrp (pronunciation of voorwerp here). Thing is, if I try to change this in the page, I get messages about input not being recognized. Anyone know how to fix this? Drabkikker (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

?Voorwerp?

What the heck does "Voorwerp" mean? 76.66.192.35 (talk) 06:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It's Dutch for 'object', as the first sentence of the article says. Olaf Davis (talk) 10:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Image

Nasa release an image of it some time ago. Maybe it's usefull and since it's Nasa's, public domain stuff? :)

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0806/hannysvoorwerp_wht_big.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.88.56.96 (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Pictures that appear on APOD come from various sources and are not necessarily public domain. We'd need to find out the precise source of the image and the license... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 22:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

This was taken by some of my colleagues on the Galaxy Zoo project; I'd be delighted to have it used on Wikipedia. Chrislintott (talk) 19:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The Isaac Newton telescope image as above is no longer used in this article, although I can't write when it was no longer used: probably when the HST was uploaded.Richard Nowell (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Now that the Hubble picture is here, it'd be pretty interesting to have the original Galaxy Zoo picture here, too, for comparison. If you can get the copyright holder to agree to put the picture under a free license and upload it to Commons or WP, it'd be great! --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Have uploaded image from SDSS. From their website: "Any SDSS image on the SDSS Web site may be downloaded, linked to, or otherwise used for non-commercial purposes, provided that you agree to the following conditions: 1)You must maintain the image credits. Unless otherwise stated, images should be credited to the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and 2)Your use of the image cannot be construed as an endorsement of any product or service".Richard Nowell (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I would also like to have the original image that Hanny saw when classifying added to the article. I don't think there is a problem as long as we attribute the image to Sloan Digital Sky Survey. Geoff Roynon (talk) 16:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Identified?

This article states first that the object is of an unknown nature, then has an entire section titled "Solution". In addition, I've just seen Chris Lintott (head of Galaxy Zoo) state categorically that Hanny's Voorwerp is a light echo of the nearby (20,000-40,000 light years) galaxy. David (talk) 18:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

This also concerns me. First, it's highly unlikely that any scientist would claim to have the "solution," for this type of an object, instead portraying a new potential theory. Furthermore, the solution section is written too casually (the phrases "multitude of friends" and "couple of" are highly unscientific), which makes me doubt it even more. And now I just took a look at the reference itself, and it certainly doesn't purport to be a complete "solution". I'm going to group together the various theories into a single section and tone down the language to be neutral, appropriate to a scientific topic, and matching to the sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

A later (February 2011) explanation can be found here. It is suspected to be part of a tidal tail of material illuminated by a quasar inhabiting the center of IC 2497. This is one of the options discussed by Dr Meghan Grey in her 2009 video here.Kuitan (talk) 09:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

nearest quasar?

According to science daily, the shut down quasar is the nearest quasar to us. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 15:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect pronounciation

Could someone correct the IPA code? I'm not familiar with the ins and outs of the IPA system so I better leave it to someone else. Let me try and explain. The "v" is similar to the way it sounds in English and the same goes for the "w". The "oo" should sound like the "o" in "more". The "e" sounds like the "a" in "wrap". Funnily enough, if you switch the "r" and the "a" to form "warp" while keeping the pronounciation of the "a" in "wrap" intact, you've got the Dutch "werp". In short: "vore-wairp", not "foor-vairp". I'm not sure if her first name is pronounced in English ("Henny") or in Dutch, but if the latter then the "a" in "Hanny" sounds like the "a" in "apartheid". Devon1980 (talk) 13:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Gave it a try anyway. Devon1980 (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Added first name after watching an interview which answered my problem. Devon1980 (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

What?

Eureka!It is a disrupted irregular galaxy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexrybak (talk • contribs) 16:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Can_I_Add_A_Few_Paragraphs_On_Voorwerpjes?

I hope it would be very useful to add something about the 'voorwerpjes', more formally known as "giant AGN-ionized clouds: past and present black hole accretion events"(arXiv:1110.6921v2).This would give more insight into the Voorwerp, as 154 smaller 'voorwerpjes' have been studied by Keel and others. I'm surprised there is nothing on these. Richard Nowell (talk) 07:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Possible Improvements.

1) Less references to external media sites. 2) Actual scientific papers that are relevant. 3) Recent papers. 4) Remove refs to various universities? 5) ???? etc. Richard Nowell (talk) 13:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Removed all but two external links - Wikipedia:ELMINOFFICIAL#Minimize_the_number_of_links. Richard Nowell (talk) 09:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Seems dubious whether there should be a link to a YouTube video. Wiki is a encyclopedia, not a personal publicity site. Richard Nowell (talk) 09:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Re-writing the references such as has happened in the present format seems pedantic at best! The Chandra Cycle 13 abstract was going to be re-written so as not to violate copyright, but a friend visited and the task was forgotten. Richard Nowell (talk) 11:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Added Bibliography

Added a bibliography, with wikification. I have not used external links with these, but if someone wants to link them I guess that's OK, if somewhat unnecessary. The list is not exhaustive, but books with one line about HsV seemed unnecessary to list (there are only 2 or 3 like this).Richard Nowell (talk) 11:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hanny's Voorwerp. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120308175047/http://astronomynow.com/news/n1006/25voorwerp/ to http://astronomynow.com/news/n1006/25voorwerp/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:57, 29 October 2017 (UTC)