Proposed rename

edit
Requested move: result was to move all
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Move all. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Requested move

edit

Discussion

edit

Please discuss this move at Talk:Globular Cluster M2.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Distance

edit

Per the SIMBAD 'distance' measurements entry, the following reference:

Crook, Aidan C.; Huchra, John P.; Martimbeau, Nathalie; Masters, Karen L.; Jarrett, Tom; Macri, Lucas M. (2007). "Groups of Galaxies in the Two Micron All Sky Redshift Survey". The Astrophysical Journal. 655 (2): 79–813. Bibcode:2007ApJ...655..790C. doi:10.1086/510201. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

gives a distance estimate of about 20 mpc (65 mly) rather than 55 mly.—RJH (talk) 18:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Is this sentence too long to be readable?

edit

"As usual on spiral galaxies of the Virgo Cluster, in the rest of the disk both star formation and neutral hydrogen, of which M100 is deficient compared to isolated spiral galaxies of similar Hubble type, are truncated within the galaxy's disk, which is caused by interactions with the intracluster medium of Virgo." Unmismoobjetivo (talk) 06:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yes! The comparison between M100 and Hubble type galaxies is wedged into a sentence about star formation regions. The sentence is ambiguous WRT which is deficient, star formation or neutral hydrogen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Targa86 (talkcontribs) 19:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)Reply