![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
I've only a passing interest in astronomy, but I've never heard of NGC having any specific connection to amateur astronomy - I was under the impression that the NGC (and IC) designations were the standard designations used for those objects by professionals and amateurs alike.
I propose to remove the word amateur from the first para unless someone steps in and tells me I'm wrong within the next week or so. Roy Badami ( talk) 22:52, 17 February 2009 (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.
{{
mergefrom|Index Catalogue|discuss=Talk:New General Catalogue#Merger proposal|date=December 2010}}
I propose that the article Index Catalogue be merged into this one. The IC is a catalogue of nebulous objects that was added to the NGC later, so clearly the two belong together. It makes no sense to me to make readers flick between two pages on the same topic. Currently Index Catalogue is a poorly sourced stub. Reyk YO! 01:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
{{
mergefrom|Revised New General Catalogue|discuss=Talk:New General Catalogue#Merger proposal|date=December 2010}}
I suggest that Revised New General Catalogue also be merged here. 65.93.12.65 ( talk) 06:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
The article says it's based on updating and expanding the Catalogue of Nebulae of William Herschel. But isn't it an expansion and update of General Catalogue of Nebulae and Clusters by John Herschel ? 65.94.46.60 ( talk) 07:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
I have not made a change through lack of time, but the box copy on the organisation of the NGC is misleading. As the article says, it was surely compiled by Dreyer at the suggestion of the RAS at Dunsink, using data from Herschel and others, but it was not organised by William Herschel at the RAS's Dunsink Observatory, which is what is suggested. Herschel was long dead, and Dunsink was not an RAS observatory. Robin Scagell ( talk) 10:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
First question: How long will It take before all of the NGC objects are completed? Second question: How many NGC's articles have been completed?-- Fucherastonmeym87 ( talk) 01:29, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Some articles about the NGC objects,(e.g. NGC 7070A, NGC 4650A) have the NGC number and following it a letter. However, some sources such as https://cseligman.com/text/atlas/ngc00.htm#ngcic consider these designations "non-standard" as the New General Catalogue had only 7,840 objects in it. Should we keep referring these objects by these designations, or should we refer to them by their PGC, UGC Et cetera designations instead?-- Fucherastonmeym87 ( talk) 00:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
What is the general opinion on creating an article page for each NGC object? A while ago I began creating a few of them but thought it was too excessive to make a page for each of the many thousands of objects. Crefollet ( talk) 01:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Instead of just leading General Catalogue (GC) 1 to NGC 1, and GC 2 to NGC 7, can we or is there a full list of the entire General Catalogue? I thought there would be over hundreds of them, Like GC 45, GC 90, or GC 270 and etc. -- StaleGuy22 ( talk) 13:57, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
I've only a passing interest in astronomy, but I've never heard of NGC having any specific connection to amateur astronomy - I was under the impression that the NGC (and IC) designations were the standard designations used for those objects by professionals and amateurs alike.
I propose to remove the word amateur from the first para unless someone steps in and tells me I'm wrong within the next week or so. Roy Badami ( talk) 22:52, 17 February 2009 (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.
{{
mergefrom|Index Catalogue|discuss=Talk:New General Catalogue#Merger proposal|date=December 2010}}
I propose that the article Index Catalogue be merged into this one. The IC is a catalogue of nebulous objects that was added to the NGC later, so clearly the two belong together. It makes no sense to me to make readers flick between two pages on the same topic. Currently Index Catalogue is a poorly sourced stub. Reyk YO! 01:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
{{
mergefrom|Revised New General Catalogue|discuss=Talk:New General Catalogue#Merger proposal|date=December 2010}}
I suggest that Revised New General Catalogue also be merged here. 65.93.12.65 ( talk) 06:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
The article says it's based on updating and expanding the Catalogue of Nebulae of William Herschel. But isn't it an expansion and update of General Catalogue of Nebulae and Clusters by John Herschel ? 65.94.46.60 ( talk) 07:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
I have not made a change through lack of time, but the box copy on the organisation of the NGC is misleading. As the article says, it was surely compiled by Dreyer at the suggestion of the RAS at Dunsink, using data from Herschel and others, but it was not organised by William Herschel at the RAS's Dunsink Observatory, which is what is suggested. Herschel was long dead, and Dunsink was not an RAS observatory. Robin Scagell ( talk) 10:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
First question: How long will It take before all of the NGC objects are completed? Second question: How many NGC's articles have been completed?-- Fucherastonmeym87 ( talk) 01:29, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Some articles about the NGC objects,(e.g. NGC 7070A, NGC 4650A) have the NGC number and following it a letter. However, some sources such as https://cseligman.com/text/atlas/ngc00.htm#ngcic consider these designations "non-standard" as the New General Catalogue had only 7,840 objects in it. Should we keep referring these objects by these designations, or should we refer to them by their PGC, UGC Et cetera designations instead?-- Fucherastonmeym87 ( talk) 00:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
What is the general opinion on creating an article page for each NGC object? A while ago I began creating a few of them but thought it was too excessive to make a page for each of the many thousands of objects. Crefollet ( talk) 01:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Instead of just leading General Catalogue (GC) 1 to NGC 1, and GC 2 to NGC 7, can we or is there a full list of the entire General Catalogue? I thought there would be over hundreds of them, Like GC 45, GC 90, or GC 270 and etc. -- StaleGuy22 ( talk) 13:57, 13 September 2020 (UTC)