Talk:Pinwheel Galaxy

Image

I think that the main image of the galaxy should be changed to a smaller version, or a warning should be put up on the page. My computer came to a standstill for almost ten minutes when it tried to load the image.

Structure and Composition section

I am of the mind that Wikipedia may be jumping on the bandwagon of quoting spurious and dubious articles that may over inflate the apparent size of the Milky Way as it might appear to an outside observer. The particular galaxy referenced in this article may be enormous, perhaps among some of the largest spirals known. Yet if we don't know the size of the Milky Way, how can we reasonably compare this galaxy with our own? I think this section should be rewritten to compensate for the insanity in the 'Milky Way' article. 71.222.77.213 (talk) 09:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree there is a problem here: this galaxy is noted as being significantly smaller than the Milky Way, but having twice as many stars. Given they are similar spirals, it is unlikely that this galaxy is 4x more dense than ours, which is what is implied here Fig (talk) 21:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Notes on 13 Aug 2006 Edits

I decided to make a few general edits to this page, performing some of the tasks that I now normally perform on many nearby galaxy pages (including the addition of data from the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database and the rearrangement of categories). This page still has some problems. Much of the information is unreferenced. In particular, the page should contain references for the given distance (which, despite the Hubble law, is still difficult to calculate) and for the information on the triggers of the spiral density waves (which I rewrote for clarity but which I did not find a reference for). If references cannot be found for either of these pieces of information, the information should be deleted. GeorgeJBendo 19:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion 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.

• Pinwheel Galaxy → Messier 101 —(Discuss)— Pinwheel Galaxy should be a disambiguation page. This disambiguation page already exists as Pinwheel Galaxy (disambiguation). Google shows that about 1/3 of uses refer to a different galaxy, and Messier 101 is consistent with other Messier objects. The way, the truth, and the light 20:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Further, this article was originally at Messier 101 (it was moved before moves were logged), most of the article uses 'M101', and the disambiguation page refers to it as 'Messier 101'. The way, the truth, and the light 04:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• I just checked the first 100 returns from Google, excluding Wikipedia and its mirrors:

46 used it for M101

37 used it for M33

2 used it for both

1 was unclear

9 for 'Southern Pinwheel' (M83)

4 for something else (a music album)

• I believe that demonstrates my case here. The way, the truth, and the light 19:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:COMMONNAME The common name is "Pinwheel Galaxy" and your other galaxy is known as "Triangulum Galaxy", not Pinwheel. Even if this is renamed to Messier 101, Pinwheel Galaxy should still redirec to Messier 101 and not be a dab page. 132.205.44.134 21:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The most common name for this is M101, I would think. I just placed the move request here; please read it. Also, you have created another thread on this topic at another board. Leave this discussion in one place.

To respond to your comments on the other board, I want 'Pinwheel Galaxy' to go to the current disambiguation page, as stated in the proposal. The way, the truth, and the light 23:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose this is without a doubt the most common use for "Pinwheel Galaxy". There is already a tag for other uses at the top of the page. Nothing more is necessary. IrishGuy ^talk 18:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The above comment by Irishguy should be ignored as he admittedly knows nothing about the subject. The way, the truth, and the light 00:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? Please read WP:CIV and WP:ATTACK before making such accusations. I have said nothing of the kind. IrishGuy ^talk 01:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Why not answer the question then? Do you have any personal knowledge of the usage of the names, which would require some interest in astronomy? The way, the truth, and the light 20:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose and it appears that The way, the truth, and the light does not comprehend how WP:RM functions. Discussions on another board? Anything not found on this discussion page are not germaine to consensus on the move. Attacking 132.205.44.134 for doing what WikiProject members do is not very nice. The nominator attacks IrishGuy for lack of knowledge but at Talk:Triangulum Galaxy admits to be not an astronomer, but attacks a professional astronomer for not knowing astronomy (User Dr. Submillimeter) 70.51.11.143 22:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The preceding post gives no actual reasons for opposing. I have never claimed that Submillimeter didn't know astronomy, I have never attacked 132.205.44.134, and my amateur knowledge is just as valid as his as a professional. The way, the truth, and the light 22:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• I've watched this dispute with sincere interest, but left off commenting until now because I didn't wish to be attacked too much by TW,TT,TL, seeing as their habit seems to be getting defensive and insulting/belittling the intellects of others when they find opposition (I've witnessed this on people's talk pages and in myriad other places too, one time directed at me as an IP, incidentally (I tend to edit or contribute anonomously to discussions). But seriously, I do oppose the move. As someone with a small degree of background in astronomical study (I'd call myself a rank amateur, really), and also as someone with a slightly larger degree of knowledge about maintaining and storing information, I can't stress enough how important it is to have concision in nomenclature! The easiest way to maintain the projects and pages on astronomical bodies IS to use professional databases like SIMBAD and NED. It sets a good standard, and allows for a single -authoritative- name for things. Truth is, inserting every amateur club's stance on it will mean we'll need 400 redirects or so per star system, one per google hit, to the point where searching "That Wavy One Over There" gives you M33! I'll peek back in later, but this is seriously getting a tad out of hand as regards TW,TT,TL... sorry. I hope I don't get insulted for "just being an anon". 142.227.104.65 13:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I keep responding to comments like this because they seem to be personal comments on me, and this is no exception. Your comparison, intended to ridicule my position, is ludicrous. I provided not one Google hit, but 37 of the first 100 - that's qualitatively different from a name made up by 'an amateur club'. The way, the truth, and the light 20:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope. It's quantitatively different. Qualitatively speaking, it's the same. It's not from an official database, and hits which do not show up from reliable sources (periodicals of note which are scientifically reviewed, or, notably, SIMBAD and NED), are qualitatively the same as a name my buddies and I use for a particular star system. Nothing more, nothing less. More hits does not equal more right, and the Google test often has fundamental flaws. I'd like to add that the purpose of using SIMBAD and NED, as the wikiproject on astronomy has agreed, is to delineate naming and insure concision. Interfering with that does not benefit the project, and is in and of itself disruptive. Additionally, they're not comments on you, TW,TT,TL: I don't even know you. I just know about your edits and opinions, and, seriously? Your edits are not aiding the project, and you're working against concensus in favor of a point which, if it were upheld, would disrupt the way nomenclature of astronomical objects is typically handled here, to the net detriment of all involved. 24.224.195.30 22:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous quibbling. Your comments are in fact directed toward me, even if you think they're justified. What do you think the 'flaws' in the Google test are? In this case, the people using the name for M33 and those using the name for M101 seem to be statistically the same, therefore Google results should have no significant bias. The way, the truth, and the light 23:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Easy, because it doesn't matter -how many- hits you get on Google, as each hit would have to be confirmed to come from a reliable source about the matter. Commonly used names are not the kind of thing you can use unless they come from peer-reviewed publications or else from other reliable sources. Nonetheless, community concensus and the efforts of the individual members of the Wikiproject will determine if it goes in. Trying to unilaterally insert your point of view without community concensus is kinda out of the blue here: I wouldn't advise continuing to push this, but I won't bother you about it. I'll simply continue to contribute to the discussion. 24.224.195.30 23:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The concept of reliable sources is relative, not absolute. For names Google is a reliable source as it is verifiable and impartial. Also, even if it were true that professional astronomers only used the name for M101, it would be irrelevant, as Wikipedia is not designed for professionals but for everyone, and amateur astronomers far outnumber professionals. The way, the truth, and the light 04:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 09:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Section break

Quote: The preceding post gives no actual reasons for opposing. I have never claimed that Submillimeter didn't know astronomy, I have never attacked 132.205.44.134, and my amateur knowledge is just as valid as his as a professional. The way, the truth, and the light 22:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I feel obliged to comment on the above with that most underrated of internet acronyms: lol. No, on Wikipedia, an amateur's opinion can be seen as equal to an equally well-presented conclusion from a professional, but in the real world, or the internet outside of Wikipedia, a professional, a confirmed professional, does indeed carry much more weight about the reasoning of their statements than an amateur, no matter how firmly they hold their convictions on naming. Since no concensus evolved, though, the move will not occur, and the name is not accepted as common, so it all works out, for such IS the benefit of Wikipedia: The best presented, founded, and logical stance works out. This is not in allusion to anything other than Submilimeter and Irishguy upholding the policy of utilizing reliable sources to derive information. Note also that personal websites, such as those inevitably erected by non-professional astronomy clubs who would use the name in this fashion, are not generally allowed to be considered reliable sources. 142.227.104.65 13:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a user account, or are you just here to troll me? You said it yourself: on Wikipedia, an amateur opinion is ewual to a professional one. This doesn't negate the guideline on reliable sources. Rather, reliable sources are (for scientific matters) the means by which we get professional opinion when we need it. It is obvious that a professional would have no better idea than an amateur about common names - likely worse, indeed, as professional astronomers don't use these kind of common names, that's why there is no official standard on them. As far as logical reasoning, anyone can see that I have presented just about every argument there is, many multiple times because you people will not listen, whereas your side has used no reasoning at all. The way, the truth, and the light 20:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

IF you think the above is trolling, rather than, say, a reasoned opinion, you have clearly not been trolled enough to tell the difference. I've never trolled, and was legitimately making an effort to point out that it would be foolish and unmanageable to allow every amateur labeling to stand, especially since it equates to fan-made sites being used for a topic. It's simpler and far more logical to use the official databases. Also, the accusations of no reasoning, trolling, etcetera, bug me a bit. Of course, I'm not so petty as to respond in kind. Yes I have a user account, but I'm somewhere far from my home computer, at a friend's, and I don't wish to use it from here. Though anonomous editing doesn't invalidate viewpoints. In fact, it makes them more relevant, because I'm, say, not counting on edits or a reputation to back up what I'm saying, just merits on their face. 24.224.195.30 02:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate description - redundant ?

The information on the ESA composite image using 51 other images, mentioned in the leading section, is repeated in the Structure and Composition section; the redundant one should be removed ¨¨¨¨ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.115.10.98 (talk) 11:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

2011-08 supernova

Should the 2011-08 supernova be added to the article? Reference --Mortense (talk) 20:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Definitely relevant; this is a major astronomical event. I've added it, with the two circulars for references. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

As to the magnitude 10, it hasn't reached that yet. Therefore, the verb tense isn't right. After it has peaked, if I remember to do it, & if no one else has done so, I'll restore the verb tense. Oaklandguy (talk) 23:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC) ps: I also added a ref., which was prepared for a less specialized audience. Oaklandguy (talk) 23:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Found a nice ref. for peak magnitude. Oaklandguy (talk) 04:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

'Pinwheel Galaxy'

These silly nicknames should be avoided (except as footnotes), as they are ambiguous and not in widespread use except among the most novice of amateur astronomers. In the 1980s and earlier 'Pinwheel Galaxy' was M33, not M101. The article should be entitled 'M101' or 'Messier 101'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.97.94.221 (talk) 14:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

See the rejected proposal from 2007, above. - Rod57 (talk) 12:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

File:M101 hires STScI-PRC2006-10a.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:M101 hires STScI-PRC2006-10a.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on April 4, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-04-04. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Picture of the day

The Pinwheel Galaxy is a face-on spiral galaxy located 21 million light-years away in the constellation Ursa Major. It was first discovered by Pierre Méchain on March 27, 1781, and communicated to Charles Messier, who verified its position for inclusion in the Messier Catalogue as one of its final entries. This image, released on February 28, 2006, is composed of 51 individual exposures, as well as some extra ground-based photos. At the time of its release, it was the largest and most detailed image of a galaxy by the Hubble Space Telescope.Photograph: European Space Agency and NASA

seven more possible satellites

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2041-8205/787/2/L37?fromSearchPage=true

©Geni (talk) 09:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Ah no it looks like follow up work suggests 4 of them are too far away

©Geni (talk) 09:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Removed image

Is the removed overview image "unnecessary space" ? --Bautsch (talk) 16:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Observability

"To observe the spiral structure in modern instruments requires a fairly large instrument, very dark skies, and a low-power eyepiece."

What does this mean please? It's a particular qualitative point of view that is repeated across several Messier objects in Wikipedia. I have a consumer DSLR, a modest lens and a general-market sidereal mount, and the spirals show up quite easily in suburban Britain with average seeing conditions in less than 30s exposure, which is what 'modern instrumentation' now means I submit. No large instrument, no dark sky, no eyepiece.

At the very least, this text and its cited reference are surely 20 years out of date. The reference majors on finding and seeing objects in a way few modern observers will be depending upon I suggest. Atconsul (talk) 11:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Obviously, eyes (using a small ~8mm pupil) do not collect light for 30 seconds before sending your brain a signal. I have added "without a camera" to the text. I still known many visual observers, but they can not post an image to social media unless they want to draw what they see. As light pollution continues to get worse, visually seeing faint objects will become more difficult. Visually, even at 200x power with a 16" telescope (Bortle 3.5 skies) the galaxy is not a very good display piece for the general public. -- Kheider (talk) 11:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

All reasonable, but I suggest the observation would be better quantified or at least more definitely qualified. After all, the context of much of the rest of the article is either historical of state of the art. Here you are describing the situation for a special group of enthusiasts. Atconsul (talk) 12:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Without being too crazy, targets brighter than say magnitude 15 asteroids (which are moving against the background sky) or magnitude 18 galaxies (which are in a fixed position), can be seen with a 4" smart telescope now-a-days. -- Kheider (talk) 12:19, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Sure. I think you've moved on to general chatting now, which is fine by me.

Perhaps you have already offered here the material the article needs to be sharper on this (assuming this is all covered by the existing reference), e.g.:

" The galaxy can be detected with binoculars or a small telescope (e.g. a 2" refracting telescope).

To visually observe the spiral structure requires a high-end amateur instrument, very dark skies, and a low-power eyepiece, e.g. 200x power 16" telescope in Bortle Scale 3.5 sky."

I'd want to go further, e.g.

" The spiral structure can also be rendered by a DSLR in a sidereal mount at tens of seconds exposure time, or by a 4" smart telescope"

But I don't have good references to offer that to hand just now. Atconsul (talk) 13:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Referencing might get difficult if the article gets too detailed. -- Kheider (talk) 13:14, 30 June 2023 (UTC)