Talk:Milky Way/Archive 3

message: 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)
thread_title:  Post-Mortem 

message: 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)
replies: text: But why bother doing that? The common name approach would suggest "Milky Way" is the appropriate title. You can't drop the "Galaxy" from "Andromeda Galaxy", because Andromeda is a constellation - the galaxy is named after where it is in the sky. And I would also suspect "common name" useage to give "Andromeda Galaxy". "Milky Way Galaxy" already redirects to "Milky Way", so there's no real point in moving. Richard B 22:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The common name approach does not superceed reliable sources. Those sources already give us the name of the band of light in the sky "Milky Way", and the name of the Galaxy "Milky Way Gallaxy" or simply "The Galaxy". Not only can you "not drop the "Galaxy" from "Andromeda Galaxy", because Andromeda is a constellation", you can you not drop the "Galaxy" from "Milky Way", because "Milky Way" is a band of light in the sky. Halfblue 12:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The common name does actually superceed the technically correct name for article titles. As has been pointed out to you several times, the two are the same thing - the band of light is just the Milky Way as viewed from Earth. It's effectively a density distribution of unresolved stars, largely in the spiral arms and galactic bulge. As others have pointed out, the half-degree-wide circle of light that you see during the daytime when it's not cloudy is the Sun. It's a star which appears to us on Earth as a bright disc. We don't (and rightly so) have articles on the visual phenomenon of the bright disc. Richard B 13:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is your not following through with even identifying the common name. "Search engines are sophisticated research tools, but often have bias and results need to be interpreted. It can be worked round but you need to know what you're doing" (Wikipedia:Search engine test). If you search "Milky Way" in Google Scholar" you have to then interpret what the author meant in those titles. If you asked every one of those authors "Do you mean within the confines of the band of light" they would say "no, I mean "The Milky Way Galaxy" "Hit count numbers alone can only rarely "prove" anything about notability, without further discussion of the type of hits, what's been searched for, how it was searched, and what interpetation to give the results. On the other hand, examining the types of hit arising (or their lack) often does provide useful information related to notability" Halfblue 13:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have discussed this several times.  The majority of publications use the term "Milky Way" to refer to the galaxy.  When relying upon sources, we make sure we use the most authoritative and current ones.  A single textbook from 1981 does not suffice, nor could it.  And, a personal website does not meet our requirements. —Viriditas | Talk 15:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that the reason for moving to Milky Way Galaxy might be best understood by considering the naming conventions listed for galaxies. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (astronomical objects)#Galaxies. I understand that some may consider the Milky Way to be a special case, but I think that it is better in terms of being particular to make sure people understand that it is a galaxy in the name. Nondistinguished 13:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: People understand it just fine.  "Milky Way" is the very translation of "Galaxy". There's no need to call the article "Galaxy Galaxy". —Viriditas | Talk 15:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Milky Way" is the translation of "Via Galactica". There is no translation of "Galaxy". Nondistinguished 17:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm referring to Ptolemy's use of galaktikos kyklos, which is close enough for my purposes. —Viriditas | Talk 17:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many readers at Wikipedia probably will not know that the term "galaxy" is derived from the Milky Way. It's not exactly common knowledge. Nondistinguished 19:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming conventions 

message: Freedman, Roger A. & Kaufmann, William J. (2007). Universe. WH Freeman & Co., p. 600. 
<Blockquote>
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.
</Blockquote>
"Milky Way Galaxy".  Encyclopedia Britannica 8. (1998). Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc.
<Blockquote>
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.
</Blockquote>
"Galaxies -- Milky Way Galaxy".  Encyclopedia Britannica 19. (1998). Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc.
<Blockquote>
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.
</Blockquote>
Pasachoff, Jay M. (1994). Astronomy: From the Earth to the Universe. Harcourt School, p. 500. 
<Blockquote>
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.
</Blockquote>
Pasachoff, Jay M. (1999). A Field Guide to the Stars and Planets. Houghton Mifflin, pp. 168-169. 
<Blockquote>
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.
</Blockquote>
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)
thread_title:  Additional Sources 

message: 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)
replies: text: I was incorrect about the source of this version of the article.  It was simply an earlier version of the article that I had saved, forgotten about, then rediscovered and took as evidence that my system had been accessed by someone other than myself.  I apologize for any confusion and skepticism that this admittedly bizarre error on my part may have caused. Theindigowombat 06:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternate version for consideration 

message: 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)
replies: text: If you're interested in doing something along those lines, you may first want to take a look at the guidelines in WP:NOT#HOWTO.  If what you're thinking of is more of a "how-to" guide then it might be more appropriate to put it in one of the other projects mentioned in the guidelines (such as Wikihow) and link to it from this article (I think that's possible although I've never tried it).  Cosmo0 14:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Visibility 

message: 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)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you're referring to.  I searched for 'volume' in the article and I can't find any reference to it.  In any case, as you rightly said, defining a volume for the Galaxy would be difficult because it doesn't have a sharp edge. Cosmo0 15:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: THAT was precisely my point, that the calculation for volume, and definition of where in space the galaxy ends is not there. What defines the 'edge' of a star system? Probably extent of its gravitational field? The galaxy also has one, though I don't know how far that extends. Any object which is not trapped by this field would be outside of the galaxy and therefore all objects that are within this field are within the volume of the galaxy? Is this a correct assumption?--Mrg3105 03:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I just wasn't sure whether you were criticizing something in the article or suggesting something new.  What you describe would be a sensible way to define it and would give you essentially the volume within the virial radius of the dark matter halo (or something close to it).  The virial radius defines the boundary between matter that is still collapsing onto the galaxy (outside the virial radius) and matter that is in dynamical equilibrium.  Of course, that's difficult to measure directly, because it is much larger than the extent of the main stellar component and is dominated by the dark matter.  It's been estimated (using some very complex theoretical modelling) to be around 200-300 kpc, but it's really not well constrained.  Cosmo0 17:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Volume of the galaxy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Galactic magnetic field? 

message: What if someone is not from Earth?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.48.25.10 (talk) 15:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Our Solar System? 

message: 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)
replies: text: I'd say no, it's not really relevant. Serendipodous 09:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How much?--92.118.191.48 (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ebay 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Thickness of gas 

message: 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)
replies: text: *A asterism is a pattern of stars.  I've never heard of the Milky Way being classified as such, since individual stars in it are only visible with a telescope. --Etacar11 13:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the glowing band an asterism? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Infobox colour 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Poor introductory paragraph 

message: 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)
thread_title:  sergi el millor 

message: 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)
replies: text: Removed first occurrance, kept artist's conception one. Vsmith (talk) 04:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  ...Wha? 

message: * Milky Way Galaxy: Snack-Sized No More Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 03:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  News article = "Milky Way Galaxy: Snack-Sized No More" 

message: The picture of the core is excellent. Much better than the one we currently have. Zazaban (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The link you supplied is to an artist's conception; not a photographic image Stefansquintet (talk) 15:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no current way to photograph the Milky Way Galaxy. That would require having a satellite/spaceship/telescope positioned somewhere outside our galaxy(at least 10000 LY away from our Sun, to get a good picture). I've made a java application based on that picture at http://www.3dgalaxymap.com/Galaxy/ Raydekk (talk) 10:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There seemed to be two additional hyphens in the url you supplied, I believe http://www.3dgalaxymap.com/Galaxy/ is the link you meant to supply. That's a pretty application you have made :) Jdrewitt (talk) 16:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for spotting that :) also here is some info on the Far 3kpc arm of the Milky Way Galaxy http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap080711.html Raydekk (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major new discovery, plus a newer, better image of the Galaxy's core. 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes, that does seem incorrect. -RadicalOne•Contact Me•Chase My Tail 17:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Update: That edit was vandalism, now reverted. -RadicalOne•Contact Me•Chase My Tail 17:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo in "Observation Data" 

message: : Sun's galactic rotation period : 220 million years (negative rotation)
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)
thread_title:  "negative rotation" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Milky Way Analog 

message: 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)
replies: text: You're right, "Norma arm" is in purple along with the "outer arm" and the "new outer arm", the "orion-Cygnus arm" is orange. I will change the text accordingly, assuming the diagram is accurate! Thanks. Jdrewitt (talk) 22:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arms controvercy 

message: In the top right table the number of stars is given as Aprox. 100 Billion, and in the article we read
:It is estimated to contain at least 200 billion stars[9] and possibly up to 400 billion stars,[10] the exact figure depending on the number of very low-mass stars, which is highly uncertain.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.11.155 (talk) 12:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "The article misquotes its source. The source it sites claims the milky way has a mass equivilant to 200 billion SOLAR MASSES. This just means that if you added up all the mass of the solar system it would be 200 billion solar masses, not that we have 200 billion stars in our galaxy. It is correct that we have approx. 100 billion. We just need a better source citing it."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.197.64.113 (talk) 16:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of stars - inconsistent numbers 

message: 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)
replies: text: You want Milky Way bar, then. —Tamfang (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  ace 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Oscillation Cycle Position 

message: 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)...  ... 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)
replies: text: In 1874, it does not appear to have been accepted that the Milky Way was a coherent grouping...  76.66.197.2 (talk) 12:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Part of the Milky Way 

message: 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)
replies: text: More completely: You confuse the relative speed of a source (the atoms that emitted the photons of the CMB) and a receiver (us, in the MW) of photons with the speed of the photons themselves when received by us.  The latter is indeed constant.  But the frequency of the photons changes instead, as the relative source/receiver speed changes, and this is what allows us to decide on the 552 km/s speed of the Milky Way: In two opposite directions on the sky (think of North  & South Poles), we see frequency changes of +552 and -552 km/s compared to the circle of intermediate directions (think of Equator). Jmacwiki (talk) 04:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different "photon velocities" ? 

message: 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 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)
thread_title:  Only one frame of reference 

message: 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)
replies: text: Any preference? Mine is for light years as this is far better known to the average lay-reader. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Definitely.  Also, it seems far easier to explain -- and therefore for the average reader to understand -- how a light year is defined (distance light travels in a year) than how a parsec is (206,265 * Earth-Sun distance). Jmacwiki (talk) 03:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standard distance units 

message: 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)
replies: text: I found an article here that is considerably more current: http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.1232 but I cannot make head or tails of what virial mass means. Seems to give an estimate of 1012 M☉.Rip-Saw (talk) 00:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent mass entries 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Milky Way avoids Serpens? 

message: 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)
replies: text: We could link to this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda%E2%80%93Milky_Way_collision from the Milky Way article. thx1138 (talk) 21:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A mention that though the galaxies will 'collide', it will have very little effect on any given system, due to the vast amoutns of empty space. The interacting galaxy page shows this well, since the milky way seems to currently be 'colliding' (absorbing,etc.) with the two Magellanic Cloud dwarf galaxies. 74.132.249.206 (talk) 12:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is Going to Happen in the Future to our Galaxy? 

message: 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)
replies: text: I suspect that that number is found by assuming that there are about 10 planets around each of the approx. 1011 stars in the Milky Way (that is, that every star has a planetary system like our own). I suspect that that estimate may be slightly optimistic, but early results from surveys for exoplanets indicate that there are multi-planet systems around other stars, and a minimum of something like 10-15% of stars in the solar neighborhood host at least one planet. James McBride (talk) 16:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of planets in the Milky Way 

message: 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)
thread_title:  2,500 stars per light year cubed? 

message: I failed to find an answer to that in this article. 88.88.126.66 (talk) 17:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm yes, an estimate would be hard I guess. But in the article about planets, it says 490 in the MW. 88.88.126.66 (talk) 11:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's 490 discovered planets, but as Analyst above says, there are probably billions of planets in the Milky way.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of planets in the Milky Way 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Minor suggestion for the text above the "Contents" box - Intro 

message: 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)
replies: text: I doubt it, because those designations are for objects you can see from the earth. You can't see the whole Milky Way from the earth since we're inside it, so it wouldn't have its own designation. thx1138 (talk) 23:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Designation? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Values for Milky Way thickness inconsistent 

message: Edits are hidden. My cellphone browser can't undo it. Thanks! निओ (talk) 17:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please revert 2 edits by annon IP 16:35 UTC 

message: 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)
replies: text: This is fine to remove, we have dedicated articles List of names for the Milky Way and Milky Way (mythology) where this information can go, if sources are found. Polyamorph (talk) 08:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced etymology 

message: 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)
replies: text: You are correct, the references cited say 200-400 billion so I have fixed the text. Polyamorph (talk) 10:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

text: See Long and short scales. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  200 billion ≠ 1×10¹¹ 

message: 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)
thread_title:  View From Earth 

message: 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.  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)
replies: text: space.com, tertiary source, claims 13.6±0.8 Ga. Using space.com or similar as a source is better, since then we're not doing the WP:SYNTH, just referring to a claim. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 14:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age [[WP:SYNTH|undue synthesis]] 

message: "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)
thread_title:  panorama desription 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Remark on page popularity 

message: The introduction sentence of this article 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)
replies: text: I assume your referring to WP:TONE. It recommends "common sense". And the spirit of the guideline seems to be WP:NPOV re: don't take sides. This is one case where we can use common sense and take a side....errr... we all live in this solar system ;). Referenced definitions of "Milky Way" seem to use "our solar system". We could always use the alternative wording "the Earth's solar system".   Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm reverting to "the" Solar System.  There is only one Solar System, i.e. the one centered on the sun (aka "sol"), and "our" should be excluded per WP:TONE.  Dragons flight (talk) 03:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: PS. If you want to say "Earth's Solar System" "the Solar System and Earth" to make it clearer to naive readers, then I'm probably okay with that, but we should still avoid using first person.  Dragons flight (talk) 03:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

text: "The solar system" is correct, as you say there is only one solar system. Polyamorph (talk) 06:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

text: I disagree and don't think you should have reverted without discussing first. By your logic the featured article Solar system also needs to be changed, I can't see that happening. Polyamorph (talk) 14:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

text: The IAU uses "the Solar system" e.g. http://www.iau.org/public/naming/#outteruses . Sure there are some sources that use the incorrect terminology for other star systems but that doesn't mean we should make the same mistakes.Polyamorph (talk) 14:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

text: The IAU recommends that individual astronomical objects (such as the Earth or the Solar system) are capatalised, see here. So referring to the Solar system as a singular object is perfectly correct according to IAU nomenclature.Polyamorph (talk) 15:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

text: "the sun together with the group of celestial bodies that are held by its attraction and revolve around it; also : a similar system centered on another star."
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)
thread_title:  Introduction paragraph 

message: 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)
thread_title:  picture taken in southern hemisphere please 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Age (again) link 

message: * The Milky Way has a relatively low surface brightness due to the interstellar medium that fills the galactic disk, which prevents us from seeing the bright galactic center.
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)
thread_title:  Unverified statement 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Galactic centre distance and Galactic mass 

message: 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)
replies: text: Commenting since I did the edit. "Sagittarius A*... is a supermassive black hole" and "Most normal galaxies have supermassive black holes at their centers" are absolute statements. "Beyond all reasonable doubt" and "Astronomers are confident" are not absolute statements. One cannot become the other per WP:V. Things can be de-weaseled but they cannot be converted into absolutes to do that. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 03:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I edited the paragraph again; I hope this sticks to the facts without inserting the sentiment "presumed" that is not in the referenced works. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 03:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Reworded a little more to remove an absolute statement. Theoretical physics is by definition theoretical, as are black holes. Not sure if you are trying to apply WP:WEASEL but expressing theories in some form is not "weasel-y".  "Presumed" is "suppose that something is the case on the basis of probability": we have referenced probability so "presumed" is not a weasel word. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Presumed" is an informal assessment by somebody, so to me is bordering on weasel. "Observed" does not require direct observation. See neutrinos for example. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  The statement "Supermassive black holes are located near the center of most normal galaxies" is incorrect per WP:NOR re: going beyond what is expressed in the source. The wording "Beyond all reasonable doubt" in the paper cited, and what is found in secondary sources re: "we now believe to be" (The Galactic Supermassive Black Hole - Forward) "expected to exist" (Introduction to Black Hole Physics, page 11) does not become the statement "are". Feel free to reword. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

text:  BTW WP:WEASEL only applies to unsupported attributions, we are talking about supported attributions here. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since we do know with reasonable certainty that there are supermassive concentrations at the cores of galaxies, even if we can not yet unarguably confirm that they are SMBHs, perhaps it would be better to say something like, "Compact, supermassive concentrations are located near the centers of most normal galaxies"? Regards, RJH (talk) 21:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the sentiment I was trying to get across with my last edit to the page, which now says "The concentration of mass around Sagittarius A* is best explained as a supermassive black hole.[47][48][49] Supermassive black holes are located near the center of most normal galaxies.[50]." I don't think saying "concentration of mass" two sentences in a row is necessary, though, given that there's essentially no debate left in the literature (including the two cited ApJ papers, ref 48 and 49 as of now) about the existence of supermassive black holes. I think that some form of the verb "to be" is a better representation of phrases like "beyond all reasonable doubt" and "it is known" than some form of the verb "presumed". —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 22:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

text:  It seems to my eyes that fewer new papers on super massive black holes are using the sort of "beyond all reasonable doubt" language that was once more common. For one example, see the intro or abstract of this paper about a cloud of gas on the way towards Sgr A*, which opens with "The Galactic center is one of the most extreme and puzzling places of the Milky Way. Harboring a supermassive black hole (SMBH) with a mass of MBH = 4.31e6 M_\sun� ..." Or, for SMBHs more generally, this paper about simulations of super star clusters around SMBHs opens with "It is known, nowadays, that many galaxies harbor a supermassive black hole (SBH) in their innermost regions." These are just a couple of recent sources that suggest that "presumed" or comparable language is unnecessary. James McBride (talk) 21:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supermassive black holes 

message: Please, could someone trim this back.  It's unnecessary. Viriditas (talk) 12:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather arbitrary amputation done. Replace anything essential with valid rationale. Vsmith (talk) 15:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: 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)
replies: text: "Star" means Star, there are allot of things people mistake for stars but we can't take that into account. Also "individually resolved" has to be defined "with what"? Any object can be classified as individually resolved if the equipment used is unlimited (the Andromeda Galaxy  can be/was individually resolved with a 100 inch telescope and a photographic plate). I reworded some of the tortured writing in the sentence (mostly my own).  Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Individually resolved 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Formation 

message: 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)
replies: text: It just suddenly squashed itself. I use Firefox and it looks just as squashed there. Not sure what went wrong. Serendipodous 13:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It was because of a corrupted thumbnail. Ruslik_Zero 16:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Much better. Thanks. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 00:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diagram of our location 

message: 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)
replies: text: I generally prefer that style and would love it if someone else were to put the work into it for this article! ;) —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 02:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, thank you. I've only ever seen one person strenuously object to WP:LDR. Having used it for a while, I feel that the benefits (e.g. significantly uncluttering the article text) outweigh the drawbacks (e.g. having to do a whole-article edit to add citations). Regards, RJH (talk) 15:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:LDR? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sentient species in the Milky Way galaxy (Mutter's Spiral) 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes, I agree this would be a good idea indeed. Anyone is welcome to begin doing this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't this the environment section of this article, which talks about the Local Group? —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 00:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Satellite galaxies 

message: The article lists the Milky Way as Hubble sequence type SBc, citing a paper posted on the arxiv in 2002.  But:
* The article says the best evidence for the galaxy's shape was found in 2005.
* The Hubble_sequence article says: "Our own Milky Way is generally classed as SBb, making it a barred spiral with well-defined arms. However, this classification is somewhat uncertain since we can only infer how our galaxy would appear to an outside observer."
* SBc looks rather extremely shaped to me (a non-expert), inconsistent with the "artist's conception" pictures here.
Can someone find current sources to resolve this?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.127.215.157 (talk) 04:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hubble sequence type wrong?