This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
"Provisionally" (like "tentatively") is not the right word. It implies that some group has formally adopted the name as a temporary name until a permanent decision can be made. That's not the case here; the name has simply been adopted through repeated use. The wording "sometimes known as" conveys the situation more accurately. -- Elphion ( talk) 04:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
(outdent)
Let me clarify what I think are the main points in response to your argument:
(1) The name "Fireworks Galaxy" appeared in the PDF, which I presume is roughly coeval with the ESO press release. You can assert that the words were meant as a caption, not as a name, but the vast majority of readers will have taken it as a name (as I think it was intended). Certainly the APOD editors took it that way.
(2) The APOD editors picked this up early in 2005, and used the name in their publication of the Gemini image.
(3) The name did not appear in WP until some two years later.
(4) Therefore the name did not spread principally because of its inclusion in WP. Rather, people picked it up from Gemini and APOD. This is in fact the way nicknames usually spread: amateurs read them on professional sites or other amateur sites (like S&T or Astronomical League) and the names gain currency. Enough currency that someone eventually adds them to WP.
(5) There is no evidence -- zilch -- that there is some conspiracy to "use Wikipedia" in a plot to spread such nicknames. They get added here principally because they have currency among amateurs. Once they get here, of course, they get wider currency, but that is only to be expected.
I do not understand why the nicknames bother you, though they clearly do. I will say that you are fighting a losing battle in trying to stifle them: they are everywhere in amateur sources (books, websites, observing programs, etc.) and increasingly in professional sources as well, as professionals begin to understand the importance of engaging the lay audience. The nicknames will continue to spread, with or without WP. For WP to ignore them is simply to stick one's head in the sand.
-- Elphion ( talk) 02:54, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
(outdent again)
Ok, that's an over-reaction. Can we please leave the ad hominems at the door? Being a native speaker of the language has never been a requirement for editing here, and Ariane generally yields on purely linguistic matters. Ariane also has a solid astronomical background and is committed to accuracy in WP. So lets stick to the matters under discussion here. (And I hope Ariane will not feel obligated to respond to each point above -- let's just move on.)
Your references are good evidence that the name is becoming current. We still need to address Ariane's objection that our reference for the name (the Gemini press release) does not in fact use the phrase "Fireworks Galaxy", although it was very likely the source that inspired the name. We can pick another reference (either APOD or any of the several you have provided), but I would still like to preserve a reference to the Gemini press release, or at least to the related PDF.
-- Elphion ( talk) 20:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
If distance is around 22 Mly and apparent size is around 11 arcmin then, unless I'm completely wrong, simple trigonometry says that diameter is around 70000 ly, not 40000 ly. Grausvictor ( talk) 15:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
This has remained unaddressed for well over a year. I now went ahead and marked the article as factually disputed. Renerpho ( talk) 07:35, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
By which, now that I think about it, if others here want to conform to the 2019 estimation of 7.79 (be warned that this value though is quite far off from other studies), you can do the math yourself and use the D25 diameter estimate by RC3 of 995.8 arcsec and adjust it to the distance you prefer, because D25 diameter estimates are distance-independent, anyway. SkyFlubbler ( talk) 10:28, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Need to wait for peer review mind:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1903.09048
©Geni ( talk) 22:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
. ©Geni ( talk) 04:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Is super-bubble refering to superbubble as in the named article? See for reference https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/461/3/2993/2608564 Daalbhaat ( talk) 16:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
"Provisionally" (like "tentatively") is not the right word. It implies that some group has formally adopted the name as a temporary name until a permanent decision can be made. That's not the case here; the name has simply been adopted through repeated use. The wording "sometimes known as" conveys the situation more accurately. -- Elphion ( talk) 04:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
(outdent)
Let me clarify what I think are the main points in response to your argument:
(1) The name "Fireworks Galaxy" appeared in the PDF, which I presume is roughly coeval with the ESO press release. You can assert that the words were meant as a caption, not as a name, but the vast majority of readers will have taken it as a name (as I think it was intended). Certainly the APOD editors took it that way.
(2) The APOD editors picked this up early in 2005, and used the name in their publication of the Gemini image.
(3) The name did not appear in WP until some two years later.
(4) Therefore the name did not spread principally because of its inclusion in WP. Rather, people picked it up from Gemini and APOD. This is in fact the way nicknames usually spread: amateurs read them on professional sites or other amateur sites (like S&T or Astronomical League) and the names gain currency. Enough currency that someone eventually adds them to WP.
(5) There is no evidence -- zilch -- that there is some conspiracy to "use Wikipedia" in a plot to spread such nicknames. They get added here principally because they have currency among amateurs. Once they get here, of course, they get wider currency, but that is only to be expected.
I do not understand why the nicknames bother you, though they clearly do. I will say that you are fighting a losing battle in trying to stifle them: they are everywhere in amateur sources (books, websites, observing programs, etc.) and increasingly in professional sources as well, as professionals begin to understand the importance of engaging the lay audience. The nicknames will continue to spread, with or without WP. For WP to ignore them is simply to stick one's head in the sand.
-- Elphion ( talk) 02:54, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
(outdent again)
Ok, that's an over-reaction. Can we please leave the ad hominems at the door? Being a native speaker of the language has never been a requirement for editing here, and Ariane generally yields on purely linguistic matters. Ariane also has a solid astronomical background and is committed to accuracy in WP. So lets stick to the matters under discussion here. (And I hope Ariane will not feel obligated to respond to each point above -- let's just move on.)
Your references are good evidence that the name is becoming current. We still need to address Ariane's objection that our reference for the name (the Gemini press release) does not in fact use the phrase "Fireworks Galaxy", although it was very likely the source that inspired the name. We can pick another reference (either APOD or any of the several you have provided), but I would still like to preserve a reference to the Gemini press release, or at least to the related PDF.
-- Elphion ( talk) 20:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
If distance is around 22 Mly and apparent size is around 11 arcmin then, unless I'm completely wrong, simple trigonometry says that diameter is around 70000 ly, not 40000 ly. Grausvictor ( talk) 15:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
This has remained unaddressed for well over a year. I now went ahead and marked the article as factually disputed. Renerpho ( talk) 07:35, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
By which, now that I think about it, if others here want to conform to the 2019 estimation of 7.79 (be warned that this value though is quite far off from other studies), you can do the math yourself and use the D25 diameter estimate by RC3 of 995.8 arcsec and adjust it to the distance you prefer, because D25 diameter estimates are distance-independent, anyway. SkyFlubbler ( talk) 10:28, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Need to wait for peer review mind:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1903.09048
©Geni ( talk) 22:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
. ©Geni ( talk) 04:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Is super-bubble refering to superbubble as in the named article? See for reference https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/461/3/2993/2608564 Daalbhaat ( talk) 16:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)