This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Here's an option: move this article to Milky Way Galaxy and redirect Milky Way to that article. At the top of that article create a notice:
Then create a new article of the sort: Earth-based observations of the Milky Way or similar title for User:Halfblue to pipe the articles that deal solely with the band of light. Everybody wins.
Thoughts?
Nondistinguished 14:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Why should Milky Way redirect to Milky Way Galaxy? Milky Way is the most common use of the term. I show around 40,000 hits in the scholarly literature for the term "Milky Way" that refers to the Galaxy, and less than 8,000 for "Milky Way Galaxy". And why would we create an article called Earth-based observations of the Milky Way when the only sources offered are interpretations of incredibly brief dicitonary entries? The current article can handle any sourced information concerning "Earth-based observations of the Milky Way", and if that content gets too big, then it can be split out into its own article. Of course, you could create Earth-based observations of the Milky Way without altering this article at all, but I don't see why. In any case, "Earth-based observations of the Milky Way" is a subset of the primary topic, "Milky Way" and doesn't change the status of this article in any way. — Viriditas | Talk 15:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I see no reason not to go ahead and declare that, if we do end up moving the article, the best title to move it to would be Milky Way Galaxy. That can complete the official documentation of the proposal that the page be moved, with the clear understanding that this proposal will be hotly contested and that if consensus is not reached, the move will not occur. Is there objection to formal submission of the title "Milky Way Galaxy" as the destination we would like to move it to, if it ends up moving? No rush, but if there's no reason to wait, we might as well. 67.166.145.20 20:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Some mods made to the intro re: WP:LEAD and redundancy.
Re: using Google to find a correct usage of a term. If you search "America Under Attack" you get 85,900 hits [1]. If you search "United States Under Attack" you get 4,100 hits [2]. That is the pitfall of trying to use Google searches to define a term. People use shorthand like "America" when they actualy mean "United States". You just can't use a Google search to define a term (and did I say its Original Research?)
Re:Two articles describing the same thing? We have example such as Aurora (astronomy) / St. Elmo's fire / Plasma... Rainbow / Refraction. Halfblue 03:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay. I've slept on it, and I have some new ideas and positions. I will attempt to improve my ability to present them in an organized and concise manner. It will take some time for me to do so. I ask for patience.
I believe that the current presentation of the article represents the closest thing we have to a stable consensus right now. It's not perfect, but it's a start. Improvements are possible that can address the concerns of all parties.
I'll formally present my ideas soon, once I am confident I can do so in a competent fashion. 67.166.145.20 12:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I recognize that my inexperience has resulted in some difficulties of presentation and appropriateness of content to this talk page. However, my contributions have been made in light of the two following priorities, which I think we can all agree on:
I found the previous state of affairs highly unsatisfactory on both levels, felt positioned to act, and felt obligated to do so despite my inexperience. If that choice has offended anyone, I apologize.
To the matter at hand:
I feel some tension has been resolved by the acknowledgement that there does exist, in some relevant contexts, cause to disambiguate between the Galaxy and its visual characteristics. Some positive initial action has been taken to address this, and that's good.
For clarity of discussion here, I suggest that we take care to make clear what definition of the term "Milky Way" we are talking about at any given time so that everyone can understand what we mean. To that end, I suggest that we avoid usage of the term "Milky Way" in isolation, as that term means different things to different people. If we mean the Galaxy, we should say the Galaxy. If we mean its visual characteristics, we should refer to them as its visual characteristics. It is my judgment that these terms will be the least volatile and most clear.
On reflection, I have concluded the following:
That's where I stand. Thoughts? 67.166.145.20 15:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I am familiarizing myself with the improved versions of WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. These articles are much easier for me to follow in their present form, and I believe I perceive a solution that more accurately represents the state and level of controversy, and reflects these essential guidelines. I ask a little more time to formulate it completely and properly; I'm new at this, and I want to make sure to get this right. I think I can provide a revision to the lead that will be superior to the current version for all concerned. 67.166.145.20 12:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I've added a template to the page which I believe is a better way to represent the lack of consensus than a proposal to change the name. Although I still think such a move would be a good idea, I now realize, based on my increased understanding of the relevant policies, that such a move is probably premature at this particular time. I am willing to abandon the proposal to move the page for the moment, but I am not opposed to such proposals and realize they may be reopened by others. 67.166.145.20 13:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
The final paragraph represents the exact claim I have clumsily tried to argue for. My only additional claim is that in light of this, and in light of simple logic, "The Galaxy" should not be used when the intended context clearly refers exclusively to the visual phenomenon. Full post-mortem to follow, for future instructional purposes as to how such polarized conflicts can be avoided. After that, my work here is done. 67.166.145.20 15:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
There have been a lot of errors of miscommunication over the past days, some of them mine. My primary fallacy has been to argue what I see as Halfblue's verifiable claim regarding terminology, using that same terminology. I have a tendency to exclusively prefer an explicit, formal definition over a more generalized, commonly used definition, and I suspect Halfblue may share this tendency. This may or may not be consistent with Wikipedia naming conventions; I lack sufficient understanding of these conventions to be sure. My additional fallacy was to adopt this personal preference for explicitly stated definitions over commonly held definitions as a fundamental truth about "proper terminology"; this is my own bias which has now been revealed to me. As a result, the following comedy of errors occurred:
From my perspective: Halfblue and I would say: "Look, the galaxy itself is not precisely the same object as its visible characteristics when viewed from Earth!" To which others would respond, "That's ridiculous; they are the exact same thing. The galaxy's visual appearance from Earth is exactly equivalent to the galaxy itself." We would reject this notion as trivially false, and the debate would go round and round.
From my improved understanding of the opposed perspective: Halfblue and I would state, "The Milky Way is not an acceptable term with which to refer to the galaxy!" to which the natural reply would be "Of course it is!! It's the most commonly used term to refer to the galaxy!!" Our seemingly outlandish claim would be rejected as trivially false, and the debate would go round and round.
My passionate attempts to clear up this misunderstanding originated from my extreme distaste for A) the severe instablility of the article, B) the poor quality that resulted from this instability, and C) the highly unpleasant atmosphere on the talk page. I was not fully aware, due to my own blind spot in this matter, that my efforts to clear up this misunderstanding might have contributed to precisely the unpleasant atmosphere which I was committed to dispel. I attributed any personal contribution I might have made to this unpleasant atmosphere to my inability to accurately communicate what I meant, to which I would respond by trying harder.
My efforts were also motivated by an attempt to shed light on what I perceive as a systemic bias held by some in this community. My passion for this cause was similarly fueled by my commitment to resolve miscommunications.
These personal biases, tendencies, and passions I possess are largely due to the fact that I happen to have Asperger's Syndrome. People with this type of neurology tend to experience great difficulties with practical interpersonal communication, and often experience substantial frustration as a result, on a continuing basis. I mention this not to be inappropriately personal, nor to excuse my own genuine mistakes, nor to seek any kind of sympathy (I accept my condition as a natural part of who I am, and often perceive such expressions of sympathy as unwarranted and unwelcome) , but merely to illustrate my belief that sometimes, a person's perceived stubbornness may have causes that are not immediately obvious, and oversimplification of such behavior as "willful refusal to understand" can often be harmful to oneself and others.
I have found this entire experience to be highly challenging, deeply rewarding, and intensely positive. To those who have had a dissimilar experience of these events, I offer my sincerest apologies for my part in that. To each and every person who has engaged with me in this discussion, I offer my deepest thanks, from the bottom of my heart, for the chance to challenge myself in this way and improve my ability to communicate clearly. I have strengthened and grown as a person as a result. Words cannot adequately describe how sincere I am in these statements.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled Wikipedia. 67.166.145.20 17:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that moving this article to Milky Way Galaxy shouldn't be that controversial. True, many people drop the "Galaxy" as redundant, but many also do the same with Andromeda Galaxy. I don't think we need to resolve at this time whether there should be a separate article for the band of light. We can probably get away with pipe-linking to the appropriate section within the main article until such a time as there is too much content and a fork should be initiated. Thoughts? Nondistinguished 20:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
By reference we should either have an article that is:
or
I have made edits that follow the first course (and consensus). A split and disabigulation of the article may still be a prefereable course of action Halfblue 14:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I have reverted back to a previous version. We need to start from the better version if we are going to get anywhere. I thought we'd already resolved this. Nondistinguished 17:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Option A) above is not a resolved consensus. Looking at the request for comments above, there are several comments that agree with A and several comments that say that the galaxy is the important part of the subject, and should come first. Personally, I don't care what section comes first, but the lead must have a good summary of all of the important issues about the galaxy we live in. The galaxy-focused lead that integrates information about the observation of and the physical characteristics of the galaxy is far preferable to the various truncated leads. However, the 4th paragraph in the current version [4] needs to go. A detailed discussion of usage (which that paragraph is not) belongs in a section of the article, not in its lead.
Also, User:Halfblue, you can't say that a certain source supports separate articles or a single article. How many articles a subject needs to cover it is a function of how much information there is on Wikipedia about it, and this is expected to change with time. There are families of organisms with common articles and no species articles, and tons of articles about specific species. There is not one correct answer to how much should be covered in an article. An article's scope is contingent on how much information has been written on wikipedia and the best way to organize that information. Enuja (talk) 18:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to let people know that I spent the day researching this matter on the UC Davis campus. I hit the bookstore, the main library, and the physics and engineering library. I have four additional sources to support this convention of terminology, all superior to what's been provided so far. One brand new textbook for this year's class, one textbook from the mid-90's, the 1998 Encyclopedia Britannica, and the 2000 Petersen Field Guide to the Stars and Planets. It'll take some time to type up and present the information. From 2 of those sources I have just the explicit definition as laid out in the texts; from the other 2, I have that plus every other usage of the terms "Milky Way" or "Milky Way Galaxy" in the texts. It all strongly supports this convention of terminology. I'm not sure how much people want, but I wanted to be on the safe side and get as much as I could. It'll be a while before I have the full citation details properly organized and prepared; that part is very difficult for me. I'll work on that and then check back to see whether people just want the definitions from each source, or all the bells and whistles. Back in a while. 67.166.145.20 22:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
When a college level text book states: "Don’t be confused by terminology: the Milky Way itself is a band of light that we can see from the Earth, and the Milky Way Galaxy is composed of a hundred billion stars plus many different types of gas, dust, planets, etc. The Milky Way is that part of the Milky Way Galaxy that we can see with the naked eye in our night time sky". -- (Contemporary Astronomy - Second Edition, by Jay M. Pasachoff, P.414), that is a statement of nomenclature. Nomenclature, if it is established, is not to be ignored or discounted. Scientific Nomenclature is a primary way of determining articles titles and subjects ( Wikipedia:Naming conflict). Any claims that nomenclature has changed need to be supported by reference. Nomenclature is not established via Googling (unless you come across articles that specifically deal with nomenclature). On line sources seem to be following this nomenclature, differentiating between one "thing", Milky Way, and a second "thing", Milky Way Galaxy [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] (please also refer to Talk:Milky Way#Additional Sources). Searches on Google Scholar are currently being used in a biased non-neutral interpretation (something that should be specifically avoided re: Wikipedia:Search engine test#Search engine tests and Wikipedia policies ---> Neutrality). The bias comes from failure to properly intemperate the results (in fact no interpretation is being used at all, the editors are simply doing a word count, counter to Wikipedia:Search engine test#Search engine tests and Wikipedia policies ---> Notability). This brings in a bias along the following lines:
So far the opinions expressed by editors above are just that, opinions, and not a basis for creating or structuring an article re: WP:V and WP:NPOV. Actual reference have to be cited, not opinion. The International Astronomical Union may be a definitive source on this but I can't find a reference. Sky feature nomenclature may fall outside their bailiwick of naming radiating and non-radiating bodies, (also Pluto might have them rattled ;^)) Halfblue 16:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Freedman, Roger A. & Kaufmann, William J. (2007). Universe. WH Freeman & Co., p. 600. ISBN 0-7167-8584-6
On a clear, moonless night, away from the glare of city lights, you can often see a hazy, luminous band stretching across the sky. This band, called the Milky Way, extends all the way around the celestial sphere. ... Today, we realize that the Milky Way is actually a disk tens of thousands of parsecs across containing hundreds of bilions of stars -- one of which is our own Sun -- as well as vast quantities of gas and dust. This vast assemblage of matter is collectively called the Milky Way Galaxy.
"Milky Way Galaxy". Encyclopedia Britannica 8. (1998). Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc.
Milky Way Galaxy, large disk-shaped system of stars and interstellar matter of which the Sun is a component. It includes the multitude of stars whose light produces the Milky Way, the highly irregular luminous band that encircles the sky. This band of starlight lies roughly in the plane of the galactic disk.
"Galaxies -- Milky Way Galaxy". Encyclopedia Britannica 19. (1998). Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc.
The Milky Way Galaxy, sometimes simply called the Galaxy, is a spiral system consisting of several billion stars, one of which is the Sun. It takes its name from the Milky Way, the irregular luminous band of stars and gas clouds that stretches across the sky.
Pasachoff, Jay M. (1994). Astronomy: From the Earth to the Universe. Harcourt School, p. 500. ISBN 0-03-001667-3
Don't be confused by the terminology: the Milky Way itself is the band of light that we can see from the earth, and the Milky Way Galaxy is the whole galaxy in which we live. Like other galaxies, our Milky Way Galaxy is composed of perhaps a trillion stars plus many different types of gas, dust, planets, etc. The Milky Way is that part of the Milky Way Galaxy that we can see with the naked eye in our nighttime sky.
Pasachoff, Jay M. (1999). A Field Guide to the Stars and Planets. Houghton Mifflin, pp. 168-169. ISBN 0-395-93432-X
The galaxy we live in, which includes about a trillion (a thousand billion) stars, is called "The Milky Way Galaxy." ... People have long called the band of light that appears to cross the sky by the name the Milky Way because of its appearance; it is the Milky Way from which our galaxy draws its name.
I have more supporting material from the last two; much more from the last one. But that's the core of it.
Sorry for yet another big post; I didn't expect to find so much. I'll add these sources to the citation. 67.166.145.20 00:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Currently the intro reads:
The sections that follow this are:
The intro (as of recently anyway) focuses on the galaxy, but is immediately followed by a section that focuses on the band of light and uses the term "Milky Way" to mean band of light. Then there are a set of sections dealing with galactic composition and structure. These could definitely be better organized, since "Size" is basically an aspect of its structure and there is seriously redundancy between "Size" and the intro to "Composition and structure". I would also suggest that "Sun's location" be broken out and a more general section on "Man's relationship to the Milky Way" be written that incorporates both the physical data on position and the information of appearance/perception (i.e. the view), possibly also incorporating the beliefs as a subheading. The section on "Discovery" also has a problem of using "Milky Way" in the two different senses without clearly delineating between them.
The Galaxy is already the more significant topic discussed here in terms of space allocated, but the "band of light" material has basically just been tacked on (at the very end and very beginning). If this is going to be a joint article, then I think it makes sense to begin the discussion by describing the large scale facts as they are know understood (i.e. as a galaxy) and then follow that with information on how that galaxy is percieved (e.g. as a band of light) and the history of the surrounding beliefs/understanding.
So, my proposed outline might look like:
I also think it is bad that all the introductory images focus on the appearance and none show spiral structure.
76.231.189.193 19:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- The Milky Way is a moderately-sized spiral galaxy, notable chiefly because it is home to our own Sun and, of course, the planet Earth. Its name in English is a translation of the Latin Via Lactea, which in turn derives from the Greek Γαλαξίας (Galaxias). From the surface of the Earth, it appears as a band of diffuse light stretching across the night sky and visible to the naked eye from a dark location (some sources hold that, strictly speaking, the term "Milky Way" should refer exclusively to this band of light, and prefer the longer name Milky Way Galaxy, or simply the Galaxy—with the first letter capitalised—to describe our galaxy as a whole; [1] [2] [3] however, the term "Milky Way" is routinely used in either context [4]).
This article appears to have undergone a massive amount of change and it may no longer satisfy the GA criteria. In particular there are numerous "citation needed" tags and there are several sections that are weakly cited or not at all. It's also not clear that the other GA criteria are still met. Should the GA status be stripped? Thanks. — RJH ( talk) 15:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, an anonymous contributor left an alternate version of the Milky Way Galaxy article in my documents folder when I was posting unsecurely through my IP address. I have put this version up on my talk page as a stimulus to discussion and to generate ideas. I hope that some find it helpful. Please feel free to check it out at your convenience.
Theindigowombat
12:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC) (The user formerly known as
67.166.145.20)
I'm sure many people would be quite interested in the potential...photographability (word?) of the galaxy's center. I know I am, though I'm hardly a decent spokesperson for other popular-science-types. I've tried to do some research as far as how to go about explaining location, photographic technique, etc., but I'm wondering if a section on this should be included. "Are those photos taken from the locations they are because that location offers something specific, or will any dark place do?", "What's the exposure time/type of camera?", etc. These questions can be thus answered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.13.191 ( talk) 00:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if this is obvious to others, but I can't seem to find what units the galaxy volume is measured in, what is considered edge of the galaxy, and how the volume is calculated for the galaxy. -- Mrg3105 03:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Can someone please ad a section or subheading for the galactic magnetic field, strength, how it's generated, etc? This seems to be a rather big oversight, unless I've completely missed it in the article. Mgmirkin ( talk) 16:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Assume that most, if not all of the below references should be fairly non-controversial? If not, I'm sure someone could cite additional peer-reviewed sources such as Hannes Alfven's work.
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/RebeccaRudberg.shtml
http://www.aas.org/publications/baas/v29n2/aas190/abs/S024001.html
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downloadsCosmo/Peratt86TPS-I.pdf
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downloadsCosmo/Peratt86TPS-II.pdf
http://focus.aps.org/story/v12/st24
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/milkyway/components.html Mgmirkin ( talk) 16:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
The galactic magnetic field is measured mostly through polarization studies with maybe a little synchrotron thrown in. The best place to get reliable sources on the matter is from NASA Adsabs. ScienceApologist ( talk) 17:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
What if someone is not from Earth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.48.25.10 ( talk) 15:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Um... Anybody notice that The Milky Way has been put up for auction on eBay? SHould this be mentioned within the article? 71.97.240.153 ( talk) 04:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I deleted ( diff) the thickness of the gas from the lead table. The number that was there referred to the warm ionized gas, which is only one of many components of the interstellar medium of the Galaxy. If we are going to quote a gas thickness of the Galaxy, it should probably be that of the neutral gas, but there is warm and cold neutral gas to confuse the picture further. See Table 1 in interstellar medium. —Alex ( ASHill | talk | contribs) 14:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Does the glowing "Milky Way" band in the sky classify as an asterism? If so, this should be mentioned in the article. SpectrumDT ( talk) 13:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
The image entitled "Artist's Conception" is striking, but there's a spelling error within it. I've always spelled it 'longitude', not 'longitIde'. It's at the top of the image. Any ideas how to fix that?
Even 'painters' have to use Spell Check. 68Kustom ( talk) 01:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Why does this infobox use #30d5c8 colour? As far as I can see thic colour is used for quasars' infoboxes (for example 3C 273, Einstein Cross, but not 3C 279), and the colour #aaffcc8 is used for galaxies (for example Andromeda Galaxy). If an infobox should be here, at least one is certain - the Milky Way Galaxy is not a quasar. And secondly, some other wikipedias are copying infoboxes from here ( ko, ms, sd, sl, te). -- xJaM ( talk) 16:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
The Environment section describes effect of Magellanic Clouds as "...the movement of these two galaxies creates a wake that influences the larger Milky Way". I wonder whether wake is right here or 'gravitational wave' is better? manya ( talk) 08:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
You could see it in the sky! —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
69.231.239.188 (
talk)
23:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
The introductory paragraph takes too long to get to the rather important point that the Milky Way galaxy is the one that we live in. That is surely one of the most significant things about it. The first sentence should be something like "The Milky Way is the galaxy in which Earth and the solar system are located." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.54.65 ( talk) 18:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
hola dedico la pagina al meu amic guapo al gerard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.98.172.72 ( talk) 09:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
This pic appears twice in the article......one caption says:
"Using infrared images from NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope, scientists have found that the Milky Way has two major arms"
the other....:
"Artist's conception of the spiral structure of the Milky Way with two major, stellar arms and a bar." This one has a citation, has lines, and names some the of the...stellar arms..
Sooo.....this this pic an artist's picture, or made by NASA's telescope??? 75.72.221.172 ( talk) 03:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Why is this fact not reflected in the summary? The mass there is still 580 billion solar masses while the latest findings which are also mentioned in the article itself indicate a mass of 3 trillion SM. The new fact is reflected in several major articles that explicitly state the Milky Way's mass is now estimated to be 3 trillion SM, "50% bigger than previously estimated" which puts the previous estimate at 2 trillion SM already.
I tried to change the value but it was rolled back on the grounds that there had been no consense previously. Pardon? These are the latest findings and should be incorporated. Dgennero ( talk) 19:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
The picture of the core is excellent. Much better than the one we currently have. Zazaban ( talk) 22:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Sun's Location
"This is very similar to how a simple harmonic oscillator works with no drag force (damping) term. These oscillations often coincide with mass extinction periods on Earth; presumably the higher density of stars close to the galactic plane leads to more impact events.[36]"
Is there any knowledge of when it's passed through the galactic plane, or when the next passing will be —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.155.105 ( talk) 09:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
2012 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.170.87 ( talk) 01:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
It's a bit self-centered (referring to earthlings) to say that:
The Milky Way, sometimes called simply the Galaxy, is the galaxy in which our Solar System is located.
Wikipedia should be able to transverse time and English speaking species. What happens when wikipedia in the future is read from people who don't live in this galaxy? What happens when aliens start tuning into Wikipedia for a crash course hitch-hikers guide to the milky way. It should read "The Milky Way, some times called simply the Galaxy, is the galaxy in which planet Earth is located."
Who's with me?
Wgfcrafty (
talk)
06:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
In four billion years I'll be the one having the last laugh. Or at least some one will be reading this discussion and laughing for me.
Wgfcrafty (
talk)
16:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
On the right-hand column at the top of the page it reads "Oldest known star 13.2 million years". Surely this should read billion. I'm a total rookie at WP, I'll leave it with you guys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.255.156.186 ( talk) 13:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Eh? Does that mean a retrograde orbit, or that the overall rotation within the Solar System is retrograde relative to that of the Galaxy, or what? — Tamfang ( talk) 21:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Messier 109 is being used as a possible analog for the Milky Way, yet the picture is very poor in quality.
I propose using NGC 1300, which is a barred spiral galaxy like the Milky Way, with a far better picture.
Rick Evans ( talk) 05:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I've been reviewing this article, and have determined that it meets the qualifications for Good Article Status. It is well written, is factual and well cited, broad in coverage, neutral in tone, stable, and well imaged. I made the small change of including the Galaxy infobox, but otherwise haven't been a part of the editing of this article.
Now that it is a Good Article, editors should review the qualifications for Featured Article Status and set their standards high! This could be a Featured Article at some point, if it continues to improve. Phidauex 20:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
The article associates Norma arm with Cygnus arm, but the picture shows that Cygnus arm as associated with Orion arm.-- 79.111.4.155 ( talk) 11:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
In the section labeled Size the term "rotational speed," a measure of cyclic frequency expressed as rotations per unit time, seems to have been used incorrectly to indicate a tangential speed:
"The newer and more accurate estimate of the galaxy's rotational speed (and in turn the amount of dark matter contained by the galaxy) puts the figure at about 254 km/s...."
Shouldn't that be changed to "tangential speed?"
Toadzha ( talk) 21:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
In the top right table the number of stars is given as Aprox. 100 Billion, and in the article we read
i like milky way bars milky way bars r really fine :] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.105.165.178 ( talk) 15:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
The article notes that "... the Sun oscillates up and down relative to the galactic plane approximately 2.7 times per orbit."
It would be useful to note where we are in that oscillation, at least to debunk the hysteria about the earth "passing through the Galactic Plane" in 2012 ... allegedly prompting some kind of Armageddon.
The article seems to add credence to this speculation by noting the Gillmana1/Erenlera1 correlation with historic biological extinctions. The Cambridge link only offers an abstract (unless someone wants to spend $45 for the full study), which isn't very clear about the "three time zones of high geological activity" related to the oscillation, nor where we are in those zones. If it must be cited, it needs some clarification. Westmiller ( talk) 06:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Good point. While checking citations of Gillman Erenler I found a solid refutation of their conclusions in Overholt et al. I've put it in the article so we can all rest easy about impending doom. User:Jandrews —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.38.200.62 ( talk) 18:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
It appears from this article in the New York Times, that even in 1900, people still considered the Milky Way separated from the Solar System (a distant celestial body)... [17] ... was this a mainstream view in society, and when did that change? That should be added to the history section, if we can come up with some more sources. 76.66.197.2 ( talk) 11:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
The universe is 500 lightyears in size and the Sun is not part of the Milky Way... 1914 [19]. 70.29.209.121 ( talk) 13:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I can accept "our solar system" or "the/our Solar System", but "the solar system" won't do: there are millions (at least) of small-s solar systems in the galaxy. Since there's strong opinion against "our", I changed it back to "the Solar System".
considered is a recent change from believed. It connotes to me that the number depends more on a question of definition than on measurement. Is that why it was changed? If not, what's wrong with believed? Are existing measurements good enough that 'belief' on the subject is outmoded?
Is cannibalized standard language? Why not a less dramatic word like absorbed? Is there some sense in which the galaxy is nourished (not merely fattened) by consuming smaller ones? — Tamfang ( talk) 18:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, Galactic cannibalism is a standard term in the field. I think it's stupid that it is, but it is. ScienceApologist ( talk) 17:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
In the Velocity section is the sentence..
The Milky Way is moving at around 552 km/s with respect to the photons of the CMB
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way#Velocity
It is a fundamental postulate of relativity that the speed of all light is the same in all directions. This quote suggests the EM waves are passing us at different speeds depending on the direction from which they are coming.
May I suggest something like...
The Milky Way is moving at around 552 km/s with respect to the reference frame established by the radiation making up the CMB.
Dave 2346 ( talk) 15:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
In the Velocity section it is stated that there are two different possible "preferred frames of reference", one with respect to the "Hubble flow" and one with respect to the CMB. However, if I understand the reference [5] correctly, these two are actually the same. The velocity of 630km/s of the "first" reference frame is, also according to the reference and CMBR dipole anisotropy, not the galaxy velocity but the Local Group velocity. The galaxy is than again moving within this Local Group giving it a velocity with respect to the CMB (or Hubble flow) of 552 km/s (I did not check this number). There is thus only one "preferred frame of reference" and I suggest to call it just the "reference frame of the CMB". -- Jmdx23 ( talk) 22:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi i am doing a school praject on the milky way can any one help me with head titles or infomation???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.238.178 ( talk) 05:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
This article flip-flops between using light years and parsecs as units of distance. I think it would be good if it only used a single unit consistently.— RJH ( talk) 20:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Only B class? Sephiroth storm ( talk) 04:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Before copyediting, one should always review comprehensiveness. Are we satisfied the article is fully comprehensive? I haven't looked at it yet myself. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 12:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Twice, this article states that the Milky Way has a mass of 5.8 × 1011 M☉. It then goes on to state that there is about 6 × 1011 to 3 × 1012 solar masses of dark mater, which far exceeds this previous number. Also, the mass of the Milky Way is routinely said to be comparable to that of the Andromeda Galaxy, given as 1.23 × 1012 M☉ in its own article. This article also happens to state the Milky Way is 1.9 × 1012 M☉, which makes a lot more sense. Also, the cited sources for the Milky Way mass seem to be a bit out of date, if I am to understand these recent mass adjustments taking dark matter into account properly. Rip-Saw ( talk) 00:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
The list of constellations that the band of the Milky Way passes through includes Aquila, Ophiuchus, Scutum, and Sagittarius. I don't see how it could possibly avoid going through Serpens Cauda - is Serpens missing, or was Ophiuchus a mistake? DenisMoskowitz ( talk) 14:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Jagged 85 ( talk · contribs) is one of the main contributors to Wikipedia (over 67,000 edits, he's ranked 198 in the number of edits), and practically all of his edits have to do with Islamic science, technology and philosophy. This editor has persistently misused sources here over several years. This editor's contributions are always well provided with citations, but examination of these sources often reveals either a blatant misrepresentation of those sources or a selective interpretation, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent. Please see: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85. I searched the page history, and found 4 edits by Jagged 85 in May 2008 and 3 more edits in July 2008. Tobby72 ( talk) 21:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I heard our galaxy is going to collide with another galaxy. If someone can prove this is true, I think it'd be nice to put this in the article. -- BrandiAlwaysSmiles ( talk) 20:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I have seen the figure of 1012 planets in the Milky Way, but I don't understand how this is computed. Thanks, Yann ( talk) 13:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
How many stars would you say were in a 1 light year volume on the mid arm of a galaxy? I know this would be a decimal, but could someone tell me? -- 90.218.231.57 ( talk) 23:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I failed to find an answer to that in this article. 88.88.126.66 ( talk) 17:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
---o
You failed to find that answer because we have no clue. We have only recently been able to identify planets around stars, and of these most are Jupiter sized. So we have 8 planets (poor pluto) around our star and the Milky way is estimated between 100 - 400 billion stars. You can make a really really rough estimate with those numbers. -- TJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Analystbynature ( talk • contribs) 20:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
if the estimative of super-earth planet are 30% http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=many-stars-may-have-super-earths (this talk only about super-earth then imagine earh-size mecury-size 95% if not all the stars have planets) and if each of this star have a least 5 planets,the milk way galaxy, should have a least 165-666 billions of planets by the estimative of 100-400 billions of stars of milk way the estimatives than i put here still low(because one star normaly have more than one planet,many stars have planets too small to be detect,ever by kepler,many of this star binary,but this star can have planets in wide orbit,many of this stars have short orbit alow the planet orbit both in circumbinary orbit,or each of the stars in the binary system can have planets orbit each one of the componets of the system,same for the multiple star systems ) ,the estimative of 50 billions planets it's too low.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.83.23.148 ( talk) 00:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
In the introduction above the contents box there is a minor issue but I couldn't edit it.
It says in the first sentence; "The Milky Way Galaxy, commonly referred to as just the Milky Way, or sometimes simply as the Galaxy, is the galaxy in which the Solar System is located."
To clarify, it should say "in which our Solar System is located." There are other solar systems in the Milky Way and I believe this sentence is trying to indicate it is where our solar system is located. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Analystbynature ( talk • contribs) 20:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Does the Milky Way have an astronomical designation? I've checked both lists on Wikipedia, neither the Messier list (no surprise there) nor the NGC contains it.-- Amitakartok ( talk) 00:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
The observation table says that the Milky Way has a thickness of about 1,000 light years, but the section on "Size" says that the estimated value for the Milky Way's thickness is 12,000 light years, an order of magnitude greater. Is this inconsistency just caused by data coming from two different sources? Which one do I value as more accurate? And can this inconsistency be changed? 24.7.113.93 ( talk) 03:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Edits are hidden. My cellphone browser can't undo it. Thanks! निओ ( talk) 17:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I've removed some unsourced material, which reads like a list dump. I would prefer to add a short summary of the list and mythology articles, but both are in poor shape and unsourced. The Harvard ref I've added properly summarizes the subject, so perhaps the section can be expanded from there. Removed material below: Viriditas ( talk) 23:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Slovene has a peculiar expression Rimska cesta (The Roman Road) for the Milky Way, which is not attested in any other language. The name is derived from an old notion that the pilgrims followed it when travelling to Rome.
In a large area from Central Asia to Africa, the name for the Milky Way is related to the word for " straw". This may have originated in ancient Armenian mythology, (Յարդ զողի Ճանապարհ hard goghi chanaparh, or "Trail of the Straw Thief"), and been carried abroad by Arabs. In several Uralic, Turkic languages, Finno-Ugric languages and in the Baltic languages the Milky Way is called the "Birds' Path" (Linnunrata in Finnish), since the route of the migratory birds appear to follow the Milky Way. (The Qi Xi legend celebrated in many Asian cultures references a seasonal bridge across the Milky Way formed by birds, usually magpies or crows.) The Chinese name "Silver River" (銀河) is used throughout East Asia, including Korea and Japan. An alternative name for the Milky Way in ancient China, especially in poems, is "Heavenly Han River"(天汉). In Japanese, "Silver River" (銀河 ginga) means galaxies in general and the Milky Way is called the "Silver River System" (銀河系 gingakei) or the "River of Heaven" (天の川 Amanokawa or Amanogawa). In some of the Iberian languages, the Milky Way's name translates as the "Road of Saint James" (e.g., in Spanish it is sometimes called "El camino de Santiago").
Number of stars 200–400 billion (1–4×1011)
200 billion is not equal to 1×1011. The above should read: 200–400 billion (2–4×1011) or 100–400 billion (1–4×1011). Please correct me if I'm wrong. -- George Makepeace ( talk) 01:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Isn't 4×1011 four houndred thousand million stars? 400 billion is 400,000,000,000,000 or 4×1014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.80.245.124 ( talk) 15:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
The astrological direction of slow motion of the Center of the Milky Way is a good paragraph.
A way to visually understand galactic rotation is that the angle between the Andromeda Galaxy and the Center of the Milky Way is slowly increasing. At the present time the galactic longitude of Andromeda is 121.17 degrees. (Andromeda is about -20 degrees in galactic latitude and south of the galactic equator.) If the angle is watched carefully for a thousand years it should increase by six arc-seconds or so. In 35 million years it will be a radian, 57 degrees. Galactic coordinates behave like ecliptic coordinates - their zero slowly migrates around the sky. In the past several thousand years the Spring equinox migrated from Aries well into Pisces, at least thirty degrees.
Has anyone noticed that scientific authors tend to place the Earth and the Solar System above the Galactic center, rather than below it? Is there some disagreement on this matter? Which is the proper orientation?
173.53.79.191 (
talk)
21:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
The figures given in the section Milky_Way#Age is improperly referenced with references that claims "nothing of that kind!" The text claims that an age of 13.2 Ga for HE 1523-0901 gives a lower limit of the age of the MW. It of course does not. If f.ex. MW was formed by the merger of diverse dwarf galaxies, then HE 1523-0901 could have originated in one of those dwarf galaxies, to join the newly emerged MW at the creation year zero, while the HE-star itself was already say 3 Ga old. Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 13:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
"Part of the Milky Way arches across this 360-degree panorama of the night sky above the Paranal platform, home of ESO’s Very Large Telescope. The image was made from 37 individual frames with a total exposure time of about 30 minutes, taken in the early morning hours. The Moon is just rising and the zodiacal light shines above it, while the Milky Way stretches across the sky opposite the observatory."
Is it nessasry to have all this infommation under the panorama? I think it could be cut down to "Part of the Milky Way arches across this 360-degree panorama of the night sky above the Paranal platform, home of ESO’s Very Large Telescope."
Let me know what you think
-Sic dicit
Defectu tui omnis iam = So Says your failure is always present
15:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
This article is currently ranked 17th on the list of the Wikipedia most popular astronomy article views, but it only has a 'B' rating. It might be worth bringing up to GA status. Regards, RJH ( talk) 19:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The introduction sentence of this article [20] fell short of WP:MOSBEGIN re:redundancy (galaxy) and going into linguistic descriptions instead of defining the subject. It is also redundant to say "home" "of the Solar System, and of Earth", if one is in the Milky Way then the other is as well. Also "home galaxy"?.... does the Solar System have another one when it is traveling?? The paragraph also contained a confusing/erroneous inline comment. "Solar System" does not necessarily "refer to the sun" re: Websters and NASA. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 15:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
It also says "our" Solar System... first person pronouns like that aren't supposed to be used on Wikipedia, are they? J'onn J'onzz ( talk) 16:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
(de-indent) I have changed it back to "our" solar system. This is a case of verifiability, not opinion. No reliable source has been put forward that there is "only one" thing that can be referred to as a "solar system" and reliable sources contradict that statement ( Websters, NASA, simple Google book search "other solar systems" - 8,660 instances)
The statement "there is only one solar system" is akin to "there is only one galaxy", both of which used to be true. "Solar System" has gone on from its original "sol" roots a long time ago, the same way "Galaxy" has gone on from its original "sole universe" and "milk circle" roots, and referring to planets around other stars as "solar systems" is very common usage [21]. There are now (as of September 15th) 562 identified "solar systems" (and billions of possible ones in our galaxy alone) so there is a need to specify which one we are talking about.
WP:TONE does not excluded first/second person - it recommends "common sense" i.e. apply WP:NPOV to exclude statements that do not apply to everyone. This is a case where the statement "our" applies to everyone, we all live here, no exceptions.
Other variations?:
"Earth's Solar System" - its actually the Sun's solar system
"the Solar System and Earth" - redundant logical statement, if one is in the galaxy, the other is as well.
Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 14:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
(posting after odd closure that seems to be based on (head count? [22]) WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS)
You seem to be confusing the concept of "the Solar System" (ours) with "a solar system" (composed of planets around other stars). Neither IAU or the Solar system articles take a stand on that nomenclature, other than that we live in a solar system and our Solar System is normally capitalised. No verification has been supplied for the statement "There is only one Solar System". You may have the opinion that "some sources" "use the incorrect terminology" but you need to cite more than your opinion. I am afraid you are pushing a river there called the English language. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written in Plain English (WP:MOS). We have plain English guides called dictionaries, and they track word use for us, saving us from the problem of original research. The first reference note at Solar system contains the Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary's entry on "solar system", re:
It does not get any more reliable than that.
If you are still of the opinion that "There is only one Solar System" feel free to take a little time to prove it. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 22:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
someone please add a picture of the night sky taken from the southern hemisphere here, without the galaxy going off the horizon as it does in the north. Okay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.87.138.107 ( talk) 23:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
These guys claims to have made an adjustion to the isochrones of stars due to debated gravitational settling (atomic diffusion) in the interior of old solar-type stars, and instead of the notorious 16-14 Gyr old age of Milky Way got 10-12 Gyr. In my opinion this only demonstrates that the concluded age of 13.6 (or so) Gyr is very insecure. Slight modifications of star models can cause vast variations in the age determination, and added to that, the age estimates varies also due to the asserted criteria for birth, whether it equals to the birth of the bulge and the globular clusters which might have occurred 2 Gyr before the birth of the disk and spiral arms... Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 15:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
The above statement is unverified and looks to be wrong since it seems to imply that removing the dust lanes would increase surface brightness. It wouldn't, the areas behind the dust lanes would be just as bright as the visible areas. I have seen statements in some texts that the galactic core would be a much brighter object if it was not obscured by dust lanes, but that is a different concept. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 16:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I made a few alterations to the article, bringing the stated distance to the Galactic centre in line with more recent data and papers -- in particular removing references to Eisenhauer et al 2005 which has been superseded by Gillessen et al 2009 (identical data plus further observations, similar author list, systematic uncertainties better understood). I also added a more recent estimate of the total Galactic mass (based on many data sets, rather than just the one). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trefusius ( talk • contribs) 15:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
There have been a few edits regarding the wording of this sentence: "Most normal galaxies are presumed to have supermassive black holes at their centers." I think that "presumed" is incorrect: this is an observation, not a presumption (or assumption). The first sentence of the abstract of the cited paper says "Beyond all reasonable doubt, black holes are commonly found in the nuclei of most normal galaxies."
Also, Supermassive_black_hole#Supermassive_black_hole_hypothesis (though not a reliable source, it was cited in this edit) says "Astronomers are confident that our own Milky Way galaxy has a supermassive black hole at its center, 26,000 light-years from the Solar System, in a region called Sagittarius A*[10] because:..."
Both statements are pretty unambiguous; all the evidence points to the presence of a supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way and most normal galaxies. I think that words like "presumed" weasel inappropriately. Obviously, nothing is universal, hence the qualifiers "most" and "normal".
Thoughts? (Commenting here rather than edit warring.) —Alex ( ASHill | talk | contribs) 02:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
(de-indent) The papers have a context, that context being theoretical physics i.e we are still dealing with theories, not facts. Even the last papers quoted have phrases like "agree well with models" "mimics the situation observed". Its not our job to weigh the numbers of papers or jump to conclusions in any one sentence, but to match secondary sources (provided). Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 14:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Jagged 85 ( talk · contribs) is one of the main contributors to Wikipedia (over 67,000 edits, he's ranked 198 in the number of edits), and practically all of his edits have to do with Islamic science, technology and philosophy. This editor has persistently misused sources here over several years. This editor's contributions are always well provided with citations, but examination of these sources often reveals either a blatant misrepresentation of those sources or a selective interpretation, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent. Please see: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85. I searched the page history, and found 4 edits by Jagged 85 in May 2008 and 3 more edits in July 2008. Tobby72 ( talk) 21:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
(brought forward from Archive 3). Did this get fully addressed in February 2011? I note that the tag questioning sources dated September 2010 is still present. It's not trivial to address this issue, but it should be done. If it has been addressed, obviously the tag should go. —Alex ( ASHill | talk | contribs) 23:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Please, could someone trim this back. It's unnecessary. Viriditas ( talk) 12:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
"The Milky Way is the galaxy that contains the Solar System" which solar system is it talking about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.219.227.73 ( talk) 06:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
(de-indent) Hunting down "instances" of use is WP:OR. "common usage" has already been cited, by the only sources that can give you that. Sorry... we can only prove statements here, not negatives. So the statement that "there is only one solar system" or "the solar system" only has one correct use has to be proven, not dis-proven. The current wording looks fine to me. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 13:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
This shocked me: All the stars that can be seen in the night sky are part of the Milky Way galaxy. Another page tells me that Andromeda is one of the brighter Messier objects and can be seen with the unaided eye. Presumably all the light emanating from Andromeda is star light. So, there are points of light in the heavens which we mistake for stars, which are not part of the Milky Way. Corollary: some of the light we can see with the unaided eye is older than the diameter of the Milky Way. The original wording would make one think otherwise until a "huh" moment later on. — MaxEnt 10:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
The article is completely missing an important topic: the formation of the Milky Way. I've taken a stab at a structure which I believe can be effectively expanded to do this by making the Age section a subsection of a new "Formation" subsection (as I think that "age" is most interesting to the extent that it tells us about the formation of the Milky Way, and "age" is meaningless without such a discussion anyway -- there wasn't a moment when the Milky Way came into being like there is for a person). Though the stub that I've put in needs to be expanded, I don't envision an enormous amount of content here; the details should be in Galaxy formation and evolution. —Alex ( ASHill | talk | contribs) 01:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
The "diagram of our location in the observable Universe" image is squashed beyond recognition for me in both Safari and Chrome on a Mac. Is that just me? As it is, the image is useless, so I'll delete it unless it looks better in another browser. —Alex ( ASHill | talk | contribs) 00:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Would anybody strenuously object if I apply WP:LDR to the citations in this article? In its current form the article is a little unwieldy and it should aid improvement efforts by moving the citations to their own section. As an example, WP:LDR is implemented on the Future of the Earth article. Thanks. Regards, RJH ( talk) 19:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
It is a total misnomer to label the region obscured by the galactic core a "shadow", as this is the direction where the greatest light of the galaxy is observed. Several Milky Way diagrams (including this current one from the article) are mis-labeled with that kind of wording. It would be a major improvement to switch this label to something like:
"region obscured by galactic core".
I expect that the motivation behind the "shadow" terminology was started because of the fact that there's a black hole at the center. However, even if this black hole were exposed, the extent of its "shadow" at most would be the diameter of its event horizon (and gravitational lensing would bend light near to that). However, the central black hole is not the reason why the opposite side of the galaxy is obscured. It's obscured by all the extremely bright stars that are gathered around that core. To call it a "shadow" is the exact opposite of what it is. I expect that fixing this mis-labeling on all of the Milky Way images will take collective effort.-- Tdadamemd ( talk) 01:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Here's what an "uncluttered" version of File:Milky Way Spiral Arm.svg looks like. Regards, RJH ( talk) 17:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
At present the article contains a surfeit of Milky Way photographs. However, what seems to be missing is a star chart like the one at right, but without the clutter of the Messier object information. I tried editing the image to remove the clutter, but at its base the SVG file is a bitmap where the messier object indicators are embedded in the core image. Does anybody have a suggestion for an alternative? I think it would be more informative to use a star chart than the long list of constellations in the Appearance section. Alternatively, the two can complement each other. Thanks. Regards, RJH ( talk) 01:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
One factoid is " Something like 60 percent of the people in the United States have never seen the Milky Way", don't know what that is world wide. But that is what we are up against in an "Appearance" section. It needs to describe the Milky Way to someone who has never seen the Milky Way. Milky Way.jpg and Milky Way Arch.jpg do that because they have a (relatively) short exposure and throw in a horizon for reference. All the other images in this article (the ones that are not diagrams) are very bright exposures or false color, so have very little relationship to real world "Appearance". So the other images give you some "bright glowing thing" with no idea of relative size. Milkyway_pan1.jpg can not give the reader scale, no way to tell if that is the whole sky or just a .1 degree segment of some Hubble image. It is also a borderline poor image since it is only 700 pixels across, barely large enough to even tel you what it is trying to tell you. All of these images could be better, but I would replace them with better ones as the come along. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 12:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
How many sentient species are there in the Milky Way galaxy since there are 200 billion stars in there? Dantescifi —Preceding undated comment added 00:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Around 12,000, according to astrobio.net. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.184.68.147 ( talk) 13:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
I came to this article looking for information about how many satellite galaxies the Milky Way has, and was surprised not to find any discussion of them at all. Eventually I noticed a few words in the lead section, linking to the article that answers my question; and there's also a navbar down at the bottom.
But I think there needs to be something in the body of the article. It should mention the Magellanic Clouds (and how they got his name when they were visible in prehistoric times), it should say when other satellite galaxies were discovered, and it should talk about how many there are, what the range of sizes and distances is, and any uncertainty in those numbers. I figure a couple of hundred words should do it, together with a repeat of the link that's in the lead section.
-- 142.205.241.254 ( talk) 22:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
The article lists the Milky Way as Hubble sequence type SBc, citing a paper posted on the arxiv in 2002. But:
Can someone find current sources to resolve this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.127.215.157 ( talk) 04:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Also, the cited arxiv paper says Sbc, not SBc. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
65.127.215.157 (
talk)
05:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I removed this sentence from the intro: "The rotation period of the Galaxy varies from the inner parts to the outer edge with a spiral pattern rotation period of once every 50 million years and a bar pattern rotation period 15–18 million years." A couple reasons:
1) It's misleading (bordering on incorrect) to the bar and spiral pattern speeds are the "rotation period". Nothing physically rotates at that speed; the period of the Sun's orbit, for example, is 200 Myr.
2) Explaining these subtleties is too much for the lede, particularly given that I don't see it mentioned at all in the text. Including these numbers in the infobox is useful, but I don't see the need to duplicate the information in prose in the lede. I think that expanding the discussion in the velocity section with this information, next to the rotation curve discussion, would make sense. (A new subsection or separate subsection for internal kinematics and rotation of the Milky Way may make sense too.) I'll try to take a stab at some point, but I'm traveling so it may be a few weeks. —Alex (
ASHill |
talk |
contribs)
06:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |pages=
has extra text (
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
: |pages=
has extra text (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: |pages=
has extra text (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Here's an option: move this article to Milky Way Galaxy and redirect Milky Way to that article. At the top of that article create a notice:
Then create a new article of the sort: Earth-based observations of the Milky Way or similar title for User:Halfblue to pipe the articles that deal solely with the band of light. Everybody wins.
Thoughts?
Nondistinguished 14:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Why should Milky Way redirect to Milky Way Galaxy? Milky Way is the most common use of the term. I show around 40,000 hits in the scholarly literature for the term "Milky Way" that refers to the Galaxy, and less than 8,000 for "Milky Way Galaxy". And why would we create an article called Earth-based observations of the Milky Way when the only sources offered are interpretations of incredibly brief dicitonary entries? The current article can handle any sourced information concerning "Earth-based observations of the Milky Way", and if that content gets too big, then it can be split out into its own article. Of course, you could create Earth-based observations of the Milky Way without altering this article at all, but I don't see why. In any case, "Earth-based observations of the Milky Way" is a subset of the primary topic, "Milky Way" and doesn't change the status of this article in any way. — Viriditas | Talk 15:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I see no reason not to go ahead and declare that, if we do end up moving the article, the best title to move it to would be Milky Way Galaxy. That can complete the official documentation of the proposal that the page be moved, with the clear understanding that this proposal will be hotly contested and that if consensus is not reached, the move will not occur. Is there objection to formal submission of the title "Milky Way Galaxy" as the destination we would like to move it to, if it ends up moving? No rush, but if there's no reason to wait, we might as well. 67.166.145.20 20:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Some mods made to the intro re: WP:LEAD and redundancy.
Re: using Google to find a correct usage of a term. If you search "America Under Attack" you get 85,900 hits [1]. If you search "United States Under Attack" you get 4,100 hits [2]. That is the pitfall of trying to use Google searches to define a term. People use shorthand like "America" when they actualy mean "United States". You just can't use a Google search to define a term (and did I say its Original Research?)
Re:Two articles describing the same thing? We have example such as Aurora (astronomy) / St. Elmo's fire / Plasma... Rainbow / Refraction. Halfblue 03:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay. I've slept on it, and I have some new ideas and positions. I will attempt to improve my ability to present them in an organized and concise manner. It will take some time for me to do so. I ask for patience.
I believe that the current presentation of the article represents the closest thing we have to a stable consensus right now. It's not perfect, but it's a start. Improvements are possible that can address the concerns of all parties.
I'll formally present my ideas soon, once I am confident I can do so in a competent fashion. 67.166.145.20 12:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I recognize that my inexperience has resulted in some difficulties of presentation and appropriateness of content to this talk page. However, my contributions have been made in light of the two following priorities, which I think we can all agree on:
I found the previous state of affairs highly unsatisfactory on both levels, felt positioned to act, and felt obligated to do so despite my inexperience. If that choice has offended anyone, I apologize.
To the matter at hand:
I feel some tension has been resolved by the acknowledgement that there does exist, in some relevant contexts, cause to disambiguate between the Galaxy and its visual characteristics. Some positive initial action has been taken to address this, and that's good.
For clarity of discussion here, I suggest that we take care to make clear what definition of the term "Milky Way" we are talking about at any given time so that everyone can understand what we mean. To that end, I suggest that we avoid usage of the term "Milky Way" in isolation, as that term means different things to different people. If we mean the Galaxy, we should say the Galaxy. If we mean its visual characteristics, we should refer to them as its visual characteristics. It is my judgment that these terms will be the least volatile and most clear.
On reflection, I have concluded the following:
That's where I stand. Thoughts? 67.166.145.20 15:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I am familiarizing myself with the improved versions of WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. These articles are much easier for me to follow in their present form, and I believe I perceive a solution that more accurately represents the state and level of controversy, and reflects these essential guidelines. I ask a little more time to formulate it completely and properly; I'm new at this, and I want to make sure to get this right. I think I can provide a revision to the lead that will be superior to the current version for all concerned. 67.166.145.20 12:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I've added a template to the page which I believe is a better way to represent the lack of consensus than a proposal to change the name. Although I still think such a move would be a good idea, I now realize, based on my increased understanding of the relevant policies, that such a move is probably premature at this particular time. I am willing to abandon the proposal to move the page for the moment, but I am not opposed to such proposals and realize they may be reopened by others. 67.166.145.20 13:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
The final paragraph represents the exact claim I have clumsily tried to argue for. My only additional claim is that in light of this, and in light of simple logic, "The Galaxy" should not be used when the intended context clearly refers exclusively to the visual phenomenon. Full post-mortem to follow, for future instructional purposes as to how such polarized conflicts can be avoided. After that, my work here is done. 67.166.145.20 15:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
There have been a lot of errors of miscommunication over the past days, some of them mine. My primary fallacy has been to argue what I see as Halfblue's verifiable claim regarding terminology, using that same terminology. I have a tendency to exclusively prefer an explicit, formal definition over a more generalized, commonly used definition, and I suspect Halfblue may share this tendency. This may or may not be consistent with Wikipedia naming conventions; I lack sufficient understanding of these conventions to be sure. My additional fallacy was to adopt this personal preference for explicitly stated definitions over commonly held definitions as a fundamental truth about "proper terminology"; this is my own bias which has now been revealed to me. As a result, the following comedy of errors occurred:
From my perspective: Halfblue and I would say: "Look, the galaxy itself is not precisely the same object as its visible characteristics when viewed from Earth!" To which others would respond, "That's ridiculous; they are the exact same thing. The galaxy's visual appearance from Earth is exactly equivalent to the galaxy itself." We would reject this notion as trivially false, and the debate would go round and round.
From my improved understanding of the opposed perspective: Halfblue and I would state, "The Milky Way is not an acceptable term with which to refer to the galaxy!" to which the natural reply would be "Of course it is!! It's the most commonly used term to refer to the galaxy!!" Our seemingly outlandish claim would be rejected as trivially false, and the debate would go round and round.
My passionate attempts to clear up this misunderstanding originated from my extreme distaste for A) the severe instablility of the article, B) the poor quality that resulted from this instability, and C) the highly unpleasant atmosphere on the talk page. I was not fully aware, due to my own blind spot in this matter, that my efforts to clear up this misunderstanding might have contributed to precisely the unpleasant atmosphere which I was committed to dispel. I attributed any personal contribution I might have made to this unpleasant atmosphere to my inability to accurately communicate what I meant, to which I would respond by trying harder.
My efforts were also motivated by an attempt to shed light on what I perceive as a systemic bias held by some in this community. My passion for this cause was similarly fueled by my commitment to resolve miscommunications.
These personal biases, tendencies, and passions I possess are largely due to the fact that I happen to have Asperger's Syndrome. People with this type of neurology tend to experience great difficulties with practical interpersonal communication, and often experience substantial frustration as a result, on a continuing basis. I mention this not to be inappropriately personal, nor to excuse my own genuine mistakes, nor to seek any kind of sympathy (I accept my condition as a natural part of who I am, and often perceive such expressions of sympathy as unwarranted and unwelcome) , but merely to illustrate my belief that sometimes, a person's perceived stubbornness may have causes that are not immediately obvious, and oversimplification of such behavior as "willful refusal to understand" can often be harmful to oneself and others.
I have found this entire experience to be highly challenging, deeply rewarding, and intensely positive. To those who have had a dissimilar experience of these events, I offer my sincerest apologies for my part in that. To each and every person who has engaged with me in this discussion, I offer my deepest thanks, from the bottom of my heart, for the chance to challenge myself in this way and improve my ability to communicate clearly. I have strengthened and grown as a person as a result. Words cannot adequately describe how sincere I am in these statements.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled Wikipedia. 67.166.145.20 17:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that moving this article to Milky Way Galaxy shouldn't be that controversial. True, many people drop the "Galaxy" as redundant, but many also do the same with Andromeda Galaxy. I don't think we need to resolve at this time whether there should be a separate article for the band of light. We can probably get away with pipe-linking to the appropriate section within the main article until such a time as there is too much content and a fork should be initiated. Thoughts? Nondistinguished 20:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
By reference we should either have an article that is:
or
I have made edits that follow the first course (and consensus). A split and disabigulation of the article may still be a prefereable course of action Halfblue 14:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I have reverted back to a previous version. We need to start from the better version if we are going to get anywhere. I thought we'd already resolved this. Nondistinguished 17:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Option A) above is not a resolved consensus. Looking at the request for comments above, there are several comments that agree with A and several comments that say that the galaxy is the important part of the subject, and should come first. Personally, I don't care what section comes first, but the lead must have a good summary of all of the important issues about the galaxy we live in. The galaxy-focused lead that integrates information about the observation of and the physical characteristics of the galaxy is far preferable to the various truncated leads. However, the 4th paragraph in the current version [4] needs to go. A detailed discussion of usage (which that paragraph is not) belongs in a section of the article, not in its lead.
Also, User:Halfblue, you can't say that a certain source supports separate articles or a single article. How many articles a subject needs to cover it is a function of how much information there is on Wikipedia about it, and this is expected to change with time. There are families of organisms with common articles and no species articles, and tons of articles about specific species. There is not one correct answer to how much should be covered in an article. An article's scope is contingent on how much information has been written on wikipedia and the best way to organize that information. Enuja (talk) 18:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to let people know that I spent the day researching this matter on the UC Davis campus. I hit the bookstore, the main library, and the physics and engineering library. I have four additional sources to support this convention of terminology, all superior to what's been provided so far. One brand new textbook for this year's class, one textbook from the mid-90's, the 1998 Encyclopedia Britannica, and the 2000 Petersen Field Guide to the Stars and Planets. It'll take some time to type up and present the information. From 2 of those sources I have just the explicit definition as laid out in the texts; from the other 2, I have that plus every other usage of the terms "Milky Way" or "Milky Way Galaxy" in the texts. It all strongly supports this convention of terminology. I'm not sure how much people want, but I wanted to be on the safe side and get as much as I could. It'll be a while before I have the full citation details properly organized and prepared; that part is very difficult for me. I'll work on that and then check back to see whether people just want the definitions from each source, or all the bells and whistles. Back in a while. 67.166.145.20 22:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
When a college level text book states: "Don’t be confused by terminology: the Milky Way itself is a band of light that we can see from the Earth, and the Milky Way Galaxy is composed of a hundred billion stars plus many different types of gas, dust, planets, etc. The Milky Way is that part of the Milky Way Galaxy that we can see with the naked eye in our night time sky". -- (Contemporary Astronomy - Second Edition, by Jay M. Pasachoff, P.414), that is a statement of nomenclature. Nomenclature, if it is established, is not to be ignored or discounted. Scientific Nomenclature is a primary way of determining articles titles and subjects ( Wikipedia:Naming conflict). Any claims that nomenclature has changed need to be supported by reference. Nomenclature is not established via Googling (unless you come across articles that specifically deal with nomenclature). On line sources seem to be following this nomenclature, differentiating between one "thing", Milky Way, and a second "thing", Milky Way Galaxy [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] (please also refer to Talk:Milky Way#Additional Sources). Searches on Google Scholar are currently being used in a biased non-neutral interpretation (something that should be specifically avoided re: Wikipedia:Search engine test#Search engine tests and Wikipedia policies ---> Neutrality). The bias comes from failure to properly intemperate the results (in fact no interpretation is being used at all, the editors are simply doing a word count, counter to Wikipedia:Search engine test#Search engine tests and Wikipedia policies ---> Notability). This brings in a bias along the following lines:
So far the opinions expressed by editors above are just that, opinions, and not a basis for creating or structuring an article re: WP:V and WP:NPOV. Actual reference have to be cited, not opinion. The International Astronomical Union may be a definitive source on this but I can't find a reference. Sky feature nomenclature may fall outside their bailiwick of naming radiating and non-radiating bodies, (also Pluto might have them rattled ;^)) Halfblue 16:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Freedman, Roger A. & Kaufmann, William J. (2007). Universe. WH Freeman & Co., p. 600. ISBN 0-7167-8584-6
On a clear, moonless night, away from the glare of city lights, you can often see a hazy, luminous band stretching across the sky. This band, called the Milky Way, extends all the way around the celestial sphere. ... Today, we realize that the Milky Way is actually a disk tens of thousands of parsecs across containing hundreds of bilions of stars -- one of which is our own Sun -- as well as vast quantities of gas and dust. This vast assemblage of matter is collectively called the Milky Way Galaxy.
"Milky Way Galaxy". Encyclopedia Britannica 8. (1998). Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc.
Milky Way Galaxy, large disk-shaped system of stars and interstellar matter of which the Sun is a component. It includes the multitude of stars whose light produces the Milky Way, the highly irregular luminous band that encircles the sky. This band of starlight lies roughly in the plane of the galactic disk.
"Galaxies -- Milky Way Galaxy". Encyclopedia Britannica 19. (1998). Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc.
The Milky Way Galaxy, sometimes simply called the Galaxy, is a spiral system consisting of several billion stars, one of which is the Sun. It takes its name from the Milky Way, the irregular luminous band of stars and gas clouds that stretches across the sky.
Pasachoff, Jay M. (1994). Astronomy: From the Earth to the Universe. Harcourt School, p. 500. ISBN 0-03-001667-3
Don't be confused by the terminology: the Milky Way itself is the band of light that we can see from the earth, and the Milky Way Galaxy is the whole galaxy in which we live. Like other galaxies, our Milky Way Galaxy is composed of perhaps a trillion stars plus many different types of gas, dust, planets, etc. The Milky Way is that part of the Milky Way Galaxy that we can see with the naked eye in our nighttime sky.
Pasachoff, Jay M. (1999). A Field Guide to the Stars and Planets. Houghton Mifflin, pp. 168-169. ISBN 0-395-93432-X
The galaxy we live in, which includes about a trillion (a thousand billion) stars, is called "The Milky Way Galaxy." ... People have long called the band of light that appears to cross the sky by the name the Milky Way because of its appearance; it is the Milky Way from which our galaxy draws its name.
I have more supporting material from the last two; much more from the last one. But that's the core of it.
Sorry for yet another big post; I didn't expect to find so much. I'll add these sources to the citation. 67.166.145.20 00:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Currently the intro reads:
The sections that follow this are:
The intro (as of recently anyway) focuses on the galaxy, but is immediately followed by a section that focuses on the band of light and uses the term "Milky Way" to mean band of light. Then there are a set of sections dealing with galactic composition and structure. These could definitely be better organized, since "Size" is basically an aspect of its structure and there is seriously redundancy between "Size" and the intro to "Composition and structure". I would also suggest that "Sun's location" be broken out and a more general section on "Man's relationship to the Milky Way" be written that incorporates both the physical data on position and the information of appearance/perception (i.e. the view), possibly also incorporating the beliefs as a subheading. The section on "Discovery" also has a problem of using "Milky Way" in the two different senses without clearly delineating between them.
The Galaxy is already the more significant topic discussed here in terms of space allocated, but the "band of light" material has basically just been tacked on (at the very end and very beginning). If this is going to be a joint article, then I think it makes sense to begin the discussion by describing the large scale facts as they are know understood (i.e. as a galaxy) and then follow that with information on how that galaxy is percieved (e.g. as a band of light) and the history of the surrounding beliefs/understanding.
So, my proposed outline might look like:
I also think it is bad that all the introductory images focus on the appearance and none show spiral structure.
76.231.189.193 19:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- The Milky Way is a moderately-sized spiral galaxy, notable chiefly because it is home to our own Sun and, of course, the planet Earth. Its name in English is a translation of the Latin Via Lactea, which in turn derives from the Greek Γαλαξίας (Galaxias). From the surface of the Earth, it appears as a band of diffuse light stretching across the night sky and visible to the naked eye from a dark location (some sources hold that, strictly speaking, the term "Milky Way" should refer exclusively to this band of light, and prefer the longer name Milky Way Galaxy, or simply the Galaxy—with the first letter capitalised—to describe our galaxy as a whole; [1] [2] [3] however, the term "Milky Way" is routinely used in either context [4]).
This article appears to have undergone a massive amount of change and it may no longer satisfy the GA criteria. In particular there are numerous "citation needed" tags and there are several sections that are weakly cited or not at all. It's also not clear that the other GA criteria are still met. Should the GA status be stripped? Thanks. — RJH ( talk) 15:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, an anonymous contributor left an alternate version of the Milky Way Galaxy article in my documents folder when I was posting unsecurely through my IP address. I have put this version up on my talk page as a stimulus to discussion and to generate ideas. I hope that some find it helpful. Please feel free to check it out at your convenience.
Theindigowombat
12:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC) (The user formerly known as
67.166.145.20)
I'm sure many people would be quite interested in the potential...photographability (word?) of the galaxy's center. I know I am, though I'm hardly a decent spokesperson for other popular-science-types. I've tried to do some research as far as how to go about explaining location, photographic technique, etc., but I'm wondering if a section on this should be included. "Are those photos taken from the locations they are because that location offers something specific, or will any dark place do?", "What's the exposure time/type of camera?", etc. These questions can be thus answered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.13.191 ( talk) 00:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if this is obvious to others, but I can't seem to find what units the galaxy volume is measured in, what is considered edge of the galaxy, and how the volume is calculated for the galaxy. -- Mrg3105 03:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Can someone please ad a section or subheading for the galactic magnetic field, strength, how it's generated, etc? This seems to be a rather big oversight, unless I've completely missed it in the article. Mgmirkin ( talk) 16:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Assume that most, if not all of the below references should be fairly non-controversial? If not, I'm sure someone could cite additional peer-reviewed sources such as Hannes Alfven's work.
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/RebeccaRudberg.shtml
http://www.aas.org/publications/baas/v29n2/aas190/abs/S024001.html
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downloadsCosmo/Peratt86TPS-I.pdf
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downloadsCosmo/Peratt86TPS-II.pdf
http://focus.aps.org/story/v12/st24
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/milkyway/components.html Mgmirkin ( talk) 16:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
The galactic magnetic field is measured mostly through polarization studies with maybe a little synchrotron thrown in. The best place to get reliable sources on the matter is from NASA Adsabs. ScienceApologist ( talk) 17:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
What if someone is not from Earth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.48.25.10 ( talk) 15:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Um... Anybody notice that The Milky Way has been put up for auction on eBay? SHould this be mentioned within the article? 71.97.240.153 ( talk) 04:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I deleted ( diff) the thickness of the gas from the lead table. The number that was there referred to the warm ionized gas, which is only one of many components of the interstellar medium of the Galaxy. If we are going to quote a gas thickness of the Galaxy, it should probably be that of the neutral gas, but there is warm and cold neutral gas to confuse the picture further. See Table 1 in interstellar medium. —Alex ( ASHill | talk | contribs) 14:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Does the glowing "Milky Way" band in the sky classify as an asterism? If so, this should be mentioned in the article. SpectrumDT ( talk) 13:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
The image entitled "Artist's Conception" is striking, but there's a spelling error within it. I've always spelled it 'longitude', not 'longitIde'. It's at the top of the image. Any ideas how to fix that?
Even 'painters' have to use Spell Check. 68Kustom ( talk) 01:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Why does this infobox use #30d5c8 colour? As far as I can see thic colour is used for quasars' infoboxes (for example 3C 273, Einstein Cross, but not 3C 279), and the colour #aaffcc8 is used for galaxies (for example Andromeda Galaxy). If an infobox should be here, at least one is certain - the Milky Way Galaxy is not a quasar. And secondly, some other wikipedias are copying infoboxes from here ( ko, ms, sd, sl, te). -- xJaM ( talk) 16:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
The Environment section describes effect of Magellanic Clouds as "...the movement of these two galaxies creates a wake that influences the larger Milky Way". I wonder whether wake is right here or 'gravitational wave' is better? manya ( talk) 08:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
You could see it in the sky! —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
69.231.239.188 (
talk)
23:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
The introductory paragraph takes too long to get to the rather important point that the Milky Way galaxy is the one that we live in. That is surely one of the most significant things about it. The first sentence should be something like "The Milky Way is the galaxy in which Earth and the solar system are located." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.54.65 ( talk) 18:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
hola dedico la pagina al meu amic guapo al gerard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.98.172.72 ( talk) 09:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
This pic appears twice in the article......one caption says:
"Using infrared images from NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope, scientists have found that the Milky Way has two major arms"
the other....:
"Artist's conception of the spiral structure of the Milky Way with two major, stellar arms and a bar." This one has a citation, has lines, and names some the of the...stellar arms..
Sooo.....this this pic an artist's picture, or made by NASA's telescope??? 75.72.221.172 ( talk) 03:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Why is this fact not reflected in the summary? The mass there is still 580 billion solar masses while the latest findings which are also mentioned in the article itself indicate a mass of 3 trillion SM. The new fact is reflected in several major articles that explicitly state the Milky Way's mass is now estimated to be 3 trillion SM, "50% bigger than previously estimated" which puts the previous estimate at 2 trillion SM already.
I tried to change the value but it was rolled back on the grounds that there had been no consense previously. Pardon? These are the latest findings and should be incorporated. Dgennero ( talk) 19:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
The picture of the core is excellent. Much better than the one we currently have. Zazaban ( talk) 22:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Sun's Location
"This is very similar to how a simple harmonic oscillator works with no drag force (damping) term. These oscillations often coincide with mass extinction periods on Earth; presumably the higher density of stars close to the galactic plane leads to more impact events.[36]"
Is there any knowledge of when it's passed through the galactic plane, or when the next passing will be —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.155.105 ( talk) 09:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
2012 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.170.87 ( talk) 01:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
It's a bit self-centered (referring to earthlings) to say that:
The Milky Way, sometimes called simply the Galaxy, is the galaxy in which our Solar System is located.
Wikipedia should be able to transverse time and English speaking species. What happens when wikipedia in the future is read from people who don't live in this galaxy? What happens when aliens start tuning into Wikipedia for a crash course hitch-hikers guide to the milky way. It should read "The Milky Way, some times called simply the Galaxy, is the galaxy in which planet Earth is located."
Who's with me?
Wgfcrafty (
talk)
06:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
In four billion years I'll be the one having the last laugh. Or at least some one will be reading this discussion and laughing for me.
Wgfcrafty (
talk)
16:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
On the right-hand column at the top of the page it reads "Oldest known star 13.2 million years". Surely this should read billion. I'm a total rookie at WP, I'll leave it with you guys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.255.156.186 ( talk) 13:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Eh? Does that mean a retrograde orbit, or that the overall rotation within the Solar System is retrograde relative to that of the Galaxy, or what? — Tamfang ( talk) 21:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Messier 109 is being used as a possible analog for the Milky Way, yet the picture is very poor in quality.
I propose using NGC 1300, which is a barred spiral galaxy like the Milky Way, with a far better picture.
Rick Evans ( talk) 05:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I've been reviewing this article, and have determined that it meets the qualifications for Good Article Status. It is well written, is factual and well cited, broad in coverage, neutral in tone, stable, and well imaged. I made the small change of including the Galaxy infobox, but otherwise haven't been a part of the editing of this article.
Now that it is a Good Article, editors should review the qualifications for Featured Article Status and set their standards high! This could be a Featured Article at some point, if it continues to improve. Phidauex 20:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
The article associates Norma arm with Cygnus arm, but the picture shows that Cygnus arm as associated with Orion arm.-- 79.111.4.155 ( talk) 11:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
In the section labeled Size the term "rotational speed," a measure of cyclic frequency expressed as rotations per unit time, seems to have been used incorrectly to indicate a tangential speed:
"The newer and more accurate estimate of the galaxy's rotational speed (and in turn the amount of dark matter contained by the galaxy) puts the figure at about 254 km/s...."
Shouldn't that be changed to "tangential speed?"
Toadzha ( talk) 21:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
In the top right table the number of stars is given as Aprox. 100 Billion, and in the article we read
i like milky way bars milky way bars r really fine :] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.105.165.178 ( talk) 15:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
The article notes that "... the Sun oscillates up and down relative to the galactic plane approximately 2.7 times per orbit."
It would be useful to note where we are in that oscillation, at least to debunk the hysteria about the earth "passing through the Galactic Plane" in 2012 ... allegedly prompting some kind of Armageddon.
The article seems to add credence to this speculation by noting the Gillmana1/Erenlera1 correlation with historic biological extinctions. The Cambridge link only offers an abstract (unless someone wants to spend $45 for the full study), which isn't very clear about the "three time zones of high geological activity" related to the oscillation, nor where we are in those zones. If it must be cited, it needs some clarification. Westmiller ( talk) 06:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Good point. While checking citations of Gillman Erenler I found a solid refutation of their conclusions in Overholt et al. I've put it in the article so we can all rest easy about impending doom. User:Jandrews —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.38.200.62 ( talk) 18:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
It appears from this article in the New York Times, that even in 1900, people still considered the Milky Way separated from the Solar System (a distant celestial body)... [17] ... was this a mainstream view in society, and when did that change? That should be added to the history section, if we can come up with some more sources. 76.66.197.2 ( talk) 11:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
The universe is 500 lightyears in size and the Sun is not part of the Milky Way... 1914 [19]. 70.29.209.121 ( talk) 13:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I can accept "our solar system" or "the/our Solar System", but "the solar system" won't do: there are millions (at least) of small-s solar systems in the galaxy. Since there's strong opinion against "our", I changed it back to "the Solar System".
considered is a recent change from believed. It connotes to me that the number depends more on a question of definition than on measurement. Is that why it was changed? If not, what's wrong with believed? Are existing measurements good enough that 'belief' on the subject is outmoded?
Is cannibalized standard language? Why not a less dramatic word like absorbed? Is there some sense in which the galaxy is nourished (not merely fattened) by consuming smaller ones? — Tamfang ( talk) 18:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, Galactic cannibalism is a standard term in the field. I think it's stupid that it is, but it is. ScienceApologist ( talk) 17:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
In the Velocity section is the sentence..
The Milky Way is moving at around 552 km/s with respect to the photons of the CMB
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way#Velocity
It is a fundamental postulate of relativity that the speed of all light is the same in all directions. This quote suggests the EM waves are passing us at different speeds depending on the direction from which they are coming.
May I suggest something like...
The Milky Way is moving at around 552 km/s with respect to the reference frame established by the radiation making up the CMB.
Dave 2346 ( talk) 15:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
In the Velocity section it is stated that there are two different possible "preferred frames of reference", one with respect to the "Hubble flow" and one with respect to the CMB. However, if I understand the reference [5] correctly, these two are actually the same. The velocity of 630km/s of the "first" reference frame is, also according to the reference and CMBR dipole anisotropy, not the galaxy velocity but the Local Group velocity. The galaxy is than again moving within this Local Group giving it a velocity with respect to the CMB (or Hubble flow) of 552 km/s (I did not check this number). There is thus only one "preferred frame of reference" and I suggest to call it just the "reference frame of the CMB". -- Jmdx23 ( talk) 22:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi i am doing a school praject on the milky way can any one help me with head titles or infomation???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.238.178 ( talk) 05:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
This article flip-flops between using light years and parsecs as units of distance. I think it would be good if it only used a single unit consistently.— RJH ( talk) 20:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Only B class? Sephiroth storm ( talk) 04:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Before copyediting, one should always review comprehensiveness. Are we satisfied the article is fully comprehensive? I haven't looked at it yet myself. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 12:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Twice, this article states that the Milky Way has a mass of 5.8 × 1011 M☉. It then goes on to state that there is about 6 × 1011 to 3 × 1012 solar masses of dark mater, which far exceeds this previous number. Also, the mass of the Milky Way is routinely said to be comparable to that of the Andromeda Galaxy, given as 1.23 × 1012 M☉ in its own article. This article also happens to state the Milky Way is 1.9 × 1012 M☉, which makes a lot more sense. Also, the cited sources for the Milky Way mass seem to be a bit out of date, if I am to understand these recent mass adjustments taking dark matter into account properly. Rip-Saw ( talk) 00:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
The list of constellations that the band of the Milky Way passes through includes Aquila, Ophiuchus, Scutum, and Sagittarius. I don't see how it could possibly avoid going through Serpens Cauda - is Serpens missing, or was Ophiuchus a mistake? DenisMoskowitz ( talk) 14:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Jagged 85 ( talk · contribs) is one of the main contributors to Wikipedia (over 67,000 edits, he's ranked 198 in the number of edits), and practically all of his edits have to do with Islamic science, technology and philosophy. This editor has persistently misused sources here over several years. This editor's contributions are always well provided with citations, but examination of these sources often reveals either a blatant misrepresentation of those sources or a selective interpretation, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent. Please see: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85. I searched the page history, and found 4 edits by Jagged 85 in May 2008 and 3 more edits in July 2008. Tobby72 ( talk) 21:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I heard our galaxy is going to collide with another galaxy. If someone can prove this is true, I think it'd be nice to put this in the article. -- BrandiAlwaysSmiles ( talk) 20:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I have seen the figure of 1012 planets in the Milky Way, but I don't understand how this is computed. Thanks, Yann ( talk) 13:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
How many stars would you say were in a 1 light year volume on the mid arm of a galaxy? I know this would be a decimal, but could someone tell me? -- 90.218.231.57 ( talk) 23:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I failed to find an answer to that in this article. 88.88.126.66 ( talk) 17:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
---o
You failed to find that answer because we have no clue. We have only recently been able to identify planets around stars, and of these most are Jupiter sized. So we have 8 planets (poor pluto) around our star and the Milky way is estimated between 100 - 400 billion stars. You can make a really really rough estimate with those numbers. -- TJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Analystbynature ( talk • contribs) 20:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
if the estimative of super-earth planet are 30% http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=many-stars-may-have-super-earths (this talk only about super-earth then imagine earh-size mecury-size 95% if not all the stars have planets) and if each of this star have a least 5 planets,the milk way galaxy, should have a least 165-666 billions of planets by the estimative of 100-400 billions of stars of milk way the estimatives than i put here still low(because one star normaly have more than one planet,many stars have planets too small to be detect,ever by kepler,many of this star binary,but this star can have planets in wide orbit,many of this stars have short orbit alow the planet orbit both in circumbinary orbit,or each of the stars in the binary system can have planets orbit each one of the componets of the system,same for the multiple star systems ) ,the estimative of 50 billions planets it's too low.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.83.23.148 ( talk) 00:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
In the introduction above the contents box there is a minor issue but I couldn't edit it.
It says in the first sentence; "The Milky Way Galaxy, commonly referred to as just the Milky Way, or sometimes simply as the Galaxy, is the galaxy in which the Solar System is located."
To clarify, it should say "in which our Solar System is located." There are other solar systems in the Milky Way and I believe this sentence is trying to indicate it is where our solar system is located. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Analystbynature ( talk • contribs) 20:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Does the Milky Way have an astronomical designation? I've checked both lists on Wikipedia, neither the Messier list (no surprise there) nor the NGC contains it.-- Amitakartok ( talk) 00:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
The observation table says that the Milky Way has a thickness of about 1,000 light years, but the section on "Size" says that the estimated value for the Milky Way's thickness is 12,000 light years, an order of magnitude greater. Is this inconsistency just caused by data coming from two different sources? Which one do I value as more accurate? And can this inconsistency be changed? 24.7.113.93 ( talk) 03:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Edits are hidden. My cellphone browser can't undo it. Thanks! निओ ( talk) 17:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I've removed some unsourced material, which reads like a list dump. I would prefer to add a short summary of the list and mythology articles, but both are in poor shape and unsourced. The Harvard ref I've added properly summarizes the subject, so perhaps the section can be expanded from there. Removed material below: Viriditas ( talk) 23:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Slovene has a peculiar expression Rimska cesta (The Roman Road) for the Milky Way, which is not attested in any other language. The name is derived from an old notion that the pilgrims followed it when travelling to Rome.
In a large area from Central Asia to Africa, the name for the Milky Way is related to the word for " straw". This may have originated in ancient Armenian mythology, (Յարդ զողի Ճանապարհ hard goghi chanaparh, or "Trail of the Straw Thief"), and been carried abroad by Arabs. In several Uralic, Turkic languages, Finno-Ugric languages and in the Baltic languages the Milky Way is called the "Birds' Path" (Linnunrata in Finnish), since the route of the migratory birds appear to follow the Milky Way. (The Qi Xi legend celebrated in many Asian cultures references a seasonal bridge across the Milky Way formed by birds, usually magpies or crows.) The Chinese name "Silver River" (銀河) is used throughout East Asia, including Korea and Japan. An alternative name for the Milky Way in ancient China, especially in poems, is "Heavenly Han River"(天汉). In Japanese, "Silver River" (銀河 ginga) means galaxies in general and the Milky Way is called the "Silver River System" (銀河系 gingakei) or the "River of Heaven" (天の川 Amanokawa or Amanogawa). In some of the Iberian languages, the Milky Way's name translates as the "Road of Saint James" (e.g., in Spanish it is sometimes called "El camino de Santiago").
Number of stars 200–400 billion (1–4×1011)
200 billion is not equal to 1×1011. The above should read: 200–400 billion (2–4×1011) or 100–400 billion (1–4×1011). Please correct me if I'm wrong. -- George Makepeace ( talk) 01:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Isn't 4×1011 four houndred thousand million stars? 400 billion is 400,000,000,000,000 or 4×1014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.80.245.124 ( talk) 15:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
The astrological direction of slow motion of the Center of the Milky Way is a good paragraph.
A way to visually understand galactic rotation is that the angle between the Andromeda Galaxy and the Center of the Milky Way is slowly increasing. At the present time the galactic longitude of Andromeda is 121.17 degrees. (Andromeda is about -20 degrees in galactic latitude and south of the galactic equator.) If the angle is watched carefully for a thousand years it should increase by six arc-seconds or so. In 35 million years it will be a radian, 57 degrees. Galactic coordinates behave like ecliptic coordinates - their zero slowly migrates around the sky. In the past several thousand years the Spring equinox migrated from Aries well into Pisces, at least thirty degrees.
Has anyone noticed that scientific authors tend to place the Earth and the Solar System above the Galactic center, rather than below it? Is there some disagreement on this matter? Which is the proper orientation?
173.53.79.191 (
talk)
21:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
The figures given in the section Milky_Way#Age is improperly referenced with references that claims "nothing of that kind!" The text claims that an age of 13.2 Ga for HE 1523-0901 gives a lower limit of the age of the MW. It of course does not. If f.ex. MW was formed by the merger of diverse dwarf galaxies, then HE 1523-0901 could have originated in one of those dwarf galaxies, to join the newly emerged MW at the creation year zero, while the HE-star itself was already say 3 Ga old. Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 13:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
"Part of the Milky Way arches across this 360-degree panorama of the night sky above the Paranal platform, home of ESO’s Very Large Telescope. The image was made from 37 individual frames with a total exposure time of about 30 minutes, taken in the early morning hours. The Moon is just rising and the zodiacal light shines above it, while the Milky Way stretches across the sky opposite the observatory."
Is it nessasry to have all this infommation under the panorama? I think it could be cut down to "Part of the Milky Way arches across this 360-degree panorama of the night sky above the Paranal platform, home of ESO’s Very Large Telescope."
Let me know what you think
-Sic dicit
Defectu tui omnis iam = So Says your failure is always present
15:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
This article is currently ranked 17th on the list of the Wikipedia most popular astronomy article views, but it only has a 'B' rating. It might be worth bringing up to GA status. Regards, RJH ( talk) 19:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The introduction sentence of this article [20] fell short of WP:MOSBEGIN re:redundancy (galaxy) and going into linguistic descriptions instead of defining the subject. It is also redundant to say "home" "of the Solar System, and of Earth", if one is in the Milky Way then the other is as well. Also "home galaxy"?.... does the Solar System have another one when it is traveling?? The paragraph also contained a confusing/erroneous inline comment. "Solar System" does not necessarily "refer to the sun" re: Websters and NASA. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 15:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
It also says "our" Solar System... first person pronouns like that aren't supposed to be used on Wikipedia, are they? J'onn J'onzz ( talk) 16:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
(de-indent) I have changed it back to "our" solar system. This is a case of verifiability, not opinion. No reliable source has been put forward that there is "only one" thing that can be referred to as a "solar system" and reliable sources contradict that statement ( Websters, NASA, simple Google book search "other solar systems" - 8,660 instances)
The statement "there is only one solar system" is akin to "there is only one galaxy", both of which used to be true. "Solar System" has gone on from its original "sol" roots a long time ago, the same way "Galaxy" has gone on from its original "sole universe" and "milk circle" roots, and referring to planets around other stars as "solar systems" is very common usage [21]. There are now (as of September 15th) 562 identified "solar systems" (and billions of possible ones in our galaxy alone) so there is a need to specify which one we are talking about.
WP:TONE does not excluded first/second person - it recommends "common sense" i.e. apply WP:NPOV to exclude statements that do not apply to everyone. This is a case where the statement "our" applies to everyone, we all live here, no exceptions.
Other variations?:
"Earth's Solar System" - its actually the Sun's solar system
"the Solar System and Earth" - redundant logical statement, if one is in the galaxy, the other is as well.
Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 14:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
(posting after odd closure that seems to be based on (head count? [22]) WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS)
You seem to be confusing the concept of "the Solar System" (ours) with "a solar system" (composed of planets around other stars). Neither IAU or the Solar system articles take a stand on that nomenclature, other than that we live in a solar system and our Solar System is normally capitalised. No verification has been supplied for the statement "There is only one Solar System". You may have the opinion that "some sources" "use the incorrect terminology" but you need to cite more than your opinion. I am afraid you are pushing a river there called the English language. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written in Plain English (WP:MOS). We have plain English guides called dictionaries, and they track word use for us, saving us from the problem of original research. The first reference note at Solar system contains the Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary's entry on "solar system", re:
It does not get any more reliable than that.
If you are still of the opinion that "There is only one Solar System" feel free to take a little time to prove it. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 22:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
someone please add a picture of the night sky taken from the southern hemisphere here, without the galaxy going off the horizon as it does in the north. Okay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.87.138.107 ( talk) 23:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
These guys claims to have made an adjustion to the isochrones of stars due to debated gravitational settling (atomic diffusion) in the interior of old solar-type stars, and instead of the notorious 16-14 Gyr old age of Milky Way got 10-12 Gyr. In my opinion this only demonstrates that the concluded age of 13.6 (or so) Gyr is very insecure. Slight modifications of star models can cause vast variations in the age determination, and added to that, the age estimates varies also due to the asserted criteria for birth, whether it equals to the birth of the bulge and the globular clusters which might have occurred 2 Gyr before the birth of the disk and spiral arms... Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 15:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
The above statement is unverified and looks to be wrong since it seems to imply that removing the dust lanes would increase surface brightness. It wouldn't, the areas behind the dust lanes would be just as bright as the visible areas. I have seen statements in some texts that the galactic core would be a much brighter object if it was not obscured by dust lanes, but that is a different concept. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 16:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I made a few alterations to the article, bringing the stated distance to the Galactic centre in line with more recent data and papers -- in particular removing references to Eisenhauer et al 2005 which has been superseded by Gillessen et al 2009 (identical data plus further observations, similar author list, systematic uncertainties better understood). I also added a more recent estimate of the total Galactic mass (based on many data sets, rather than just the one). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trefusius ( talk • contribs) 15:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
There have been a few edits regarding the wording of this sentence: "Most normal galaxies are presumed to have supermassive black holes at their centers." I think that "presumed" is incorrect: this is an observation, not a presumption (or assumption). The first sentence of the abstract of the cited paper says "Beyond all reasonable doubt, black holes are commonly found in the nuclei of most normal galaxies."
Also, Supermassive_black_hole#Supermassive_black_hole_hypothesis (though not a reliable source, it was cited in this edit) says "Astronomers are confident that our own Milky Way galaxy has a supermassive black hole at its center, 26,000 light-years from the Solar System, in a region called Sagittarius A*[10] because:..."
Both statements are pretty unambiguous; all the evidence points to the presence of a supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way and most normal galaxies. I think that words like "presumed" weasel inappropriately. Obviously, nothing is universal, hence the qualifiers "most" and "normal".
Thoughts? (Commenting here rather than edit warring.) —Alex ( ASHill | talk | contribs) 02:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
(de-indent) The papers have a context, that context being theoretical physics i.e we are still dealing with theories, not facts. Even the last papers quoted have phrases like "agree well with models" "mimics the situation observed". Its not our job to weigh the numbers of papers or jump to conclusions in any one sentence, but to match secondary sources (provided). Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 14:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Jagged 85 ( talk · contribs) is one of the main contributors to Wikipedia (over 67,000 edits, he's ranked 198 in the number of edits), and practically all of his edits have to do with Islamic science, technology and philosophy. This editor has persistently misused sources here over several years. This editor's contributions are always well provided with citations, but examination of these sources often reveals either a blatant misrepresentation of those sources or a selective interpretation, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent. Please see: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85. I searched the page history, and found 4 edits by Jagged 85 in May 2008 and 3 more edits in July 2008. Tobby72 ( talk) 21:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
(brought forward from Archive 3). Did this get fully addressed in February 2011? I note that the tag questioning sources dated September 2010 is still present. It's not trivial to address this issue, but it should be done. If it has been addressed, obviously the tag should go. —Alex ( ASHill | talk | contribs) 23:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Please, could someone trim this back. It's unnecessary. Viriditas ( talk) 12:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
"The Milky Way is the galaxy that contains the Solar System" which solar system is it talking about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.219.227.73 ( talk) 06:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
(de-indent) Hunting down "instances" of use is WP:OR. "common usage" has already been cited, by the only sources that can give you that. Sorry... we can only prove statements here, not negatives. So the statement that "there is only one solar system" or "the solar system" only has one correct use has to be proven, not dis-proven. The current wording looks fine to me. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 13:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
This shocked me: All the stars that can be seen in the night sky are part of the Milky Way galaxy. Another page tells me that Andromeda is one of the brighter Messier objects and can be seen with the unaided eye. Presumably all the light emanating from Andromeda is star light. So, there are points of light in the heavens which we mistake for stars, which are not part of the Milky Way. Corollary: some of the light we can see with the unaided eye is older than the diameter of the Milky Way. The original wording would make one think otherwise until a "huh" moment later on. — MaxEnt 10:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
The article is completely missing an important topic: the formation of the Milky Way. I've taken a stab at a structure which I believe can be effectively expanded to do this by making the Age section a subsection of a new "Formation" subsection (as I think that "age" is most interesting to the extent that it tells us about the formation of the Milky Way, and "age" is meaningless without such a discussion anyway -- there wasn't a moment when the Milky Way came into being like there is for a person). Though the stub that I've put in needs to be expanded, I don't envision an enormous amount of content here; the details should be in Galaxy formation and evolution. —Alex ( ASHill | talk | contribs) 01:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
The "diagram of our location in the observable Universe" image is squashed beyond recognition for me in both Safari and Chrome on a Mac. Is that just me? As it is, the image is useless, so I'll delete it unless it looks better in another browser. —Alex ( ASHill | talk | contribs) 00:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Would anybody strenuously object if I apply WP:LDR to the citations in this article? In its current form the article is a little unwieldy and it should aid improvement efforts by moving the citations to their own section. As an example, WP:LDR is implemented on the Future of the Earth article. Thanks. Regards, RJH ( talk) 19:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
It is a total misnomer to label the region obscured by the galactic core a "shadow", as this is the direction where the greatest light of the galaxy is observed. Several Milky Way diagrams (including this current one from the article) are mis-labeled with that kind of wording. It would be a major improvement to switch this label to something like:
"region obscured by galactic core".
I expect that the motivation behind the "shadow" terminology was started because of the fact that there's a black hole at the center. However, even if this black hole were exposed, the extent of its "shadow" at most would be the diameter of its event horizon (and gravitational lensing would bend light near to that). However, the central black hole is not the reason why the opposite side of the galaxy is obscured. It's obscured by all the extremely bright stars that are gathered around that core. To call it a "shadow" is the exact opposite of what it is. I expect that fixing this mis-labeling on all of the Milky Way images will take collective effort.-- Tdadamemd ( talk) 01:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Here's what an "uncluttered" version of File:Milky Way Spiral Arm.svg looks like. Regards, RJH ( talk) 17:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
At present the article contains a surfeit of Milky Way photographs. However, what seems to be missing is a star chart like the one at right, but without the clutter of the Messier object information. I tried editing the image to remove the clutter, but at its base the SVG file is a bitmap where the messier object indicators are embedded in the core image. Does anybody have a suggestion for an alternative? I think it would be more informative to use a star chart than the long list of constellations in the Appearance section. Alternatively, the two can complement each other. Thanks. Regards, RJH ( talk) 01:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
One factoid is " Something like 60 percent of the people in the United States have never seen the Milky Way", don't know what that is world wide. But that is what we are up against in an "Appearance" section. It needs to describe the Milky Way to someone who has never seen the Milky Way. Milky Way.jpg and Milky Way Arch.jpg do that because they have a (relatively) short exposure and throw in a horizon for reference. All the other images in this article (the ones that are not diagrams) are very bright exposures or false color, so have very little relationship to real world "Appearance". So the other images give you some "bright glowing thing" with no idea of relative size. Milkyway_pan1.jpg can not give the reader scale, no way to tell if that is the whole sky or just a .1 degree segment of some Hubble image. It is also a borderline poor image since it is only 700 pixels across, barely large enough to even tel you what it is trying to tell you. All of these images could be better, but I would replace them with better ones as the come along. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 12:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
How many sentient species are there in the Milky Way galaxy since there are 200 billion stars in there? Dantescifi —Preceding undated comment added 00:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Around 12,000, according to astrobio.net. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.184.68.147 ( talk) 13:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
I came to this article looking for information about how many satellite galaxies the Milky Way has, and was surprised not to find any discussion of them at all. Eventually I noticed a few words in the lead section, linking to the article that answers my question; and there's also a navbar down at the bottom.
But I think there needs to be something in the body of the article. It should mention the Magellanic Clouds (and how they got his name when they were visible in prehistoric times), it should say when other satellite galaxies were discovered, and it should talk about how many there are, what the range of sizes and distances is, and any uncertainty in those numbers. I figure a couple of hundred words should do it, together with a repeat of the link that's in the lead section.
-- 142.205.241.254 ( talk) 22:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
The article lists the Milky Way as Hubble sequence type SBc, citing a paper posted on the arxiv in 2002. But:
Can someone find current sources to resolve this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.127.215.157 ( talk) 04:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Also, the cited arxiv paper says Sbc, not SBc. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
65.127.215.157 (
talk)
05:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I removed this sentence from the intro: "The rotation period of the Galaxy varies from the inner parts to the outer edge with a spiral pattern rotation period of once every 50 million years and a bar pattern rotation period 15–18 million years." A couple reasons:
1) It's misleading (bordering on incorrect) to the bar and spiral pattern speeds are the "rotation period". Nothing physically rotates at that speed; the period of the Sun's orbit, for example, is 200 Myr.
2) Explaining these subtleties is too much for the lede, particularly given that I don't see it mentioned at all in the text. Including these numbers in the infobox is useful, but I don't see the need to duplicate the information in prose in the lede. I think that expanding the discussion in the velocity section with this information, next to the rotation curve discussion, would make sense. (A new subsection or separate subsection for internal kinematics and rotation of the Milky Way may make sense too.) I'll try to take a stab at some point, but I'm traveling so it may be a few weeks. —Alex (
ASHill |
talk |
contribs)
06:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |pages=
has extra text (
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
: |pages=
has extra text (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: |pages=
has extra text (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)