Talk:Eagle Nebula

message: the eagle nebula is exhilerating =] -Wrestlenovi 04:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Eagle Nebula

message: Anyone know of any theories of formation? It's a strange object. It looks like a matter explosion into what was once a homogenous matter cloud. (Does WP:NOR apply to talk pages?) Jeff Carr 23:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it was a large explosion of anti-matter that annilated several light years of matter. Undoubtedly some alien Dr. Strangelove built it to erase nearby stars :) Jeff Carr 23:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theories of formation? 

message: I hear that they add color to certain space images, probably to enhance them.  Is this one of them?  Or is it in original color?
This image is not true-color, no, and instead is a narrow-band image showing sulfur, oxygen, and hydrogen emissions from the cloud and surrounding area. There are however images approximating the true color available (for example, http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap970718.html ) that are relatively representative! Some other folks may have more useful links as well. Cheers! Krinberry 06:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added Color? 

message: The article states that protostars are only found in the Eagle nebula. This doesn't seem like a reasonable statement, could it be that the author meant to say they have only been observed in this nebula?--Hgebel 19:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I updated the text per the original wording and asked that author to provide a citation. WilliamKF 20:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that was my past addition, which is not true for now - W5, imaged in 2005 is much larger star formation region. I've added reworded citation. Cmapm 16:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protostars 

message: I read that the eagle nebula's pillars were not destroyed by a supernova, it was actually an elementary  error by the people who run the Spitzer space telescope. I am going to remove that part, because it is false. TheOtherSiguy 14:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But see "Supernova again" below. -- Elphion (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  No. 

message: "The Eagle Nebula was actually blown to bits by an exploding star 8,000-9,000 years ago, but in pictures it looks fine, because it takes 7,000 years for light to reach Earth. Therefore, it will take another 1,000 years to see the destruction"
This seems to be FTL information?
--M a s (talk) 05:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was just some random nonsense. It's gone now. --Harald Khan  Ճ 15:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

text: (see "Supernova again" below) -- Elphion (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something doesn't add up 

message: I don't know much about the Eagle Nebula, but according to several sources that I've read (including Philip's Astronomy Encyclopedia and seds.org, linked to in this article), the cluster and the nebula as a whole is referred to as the Eagle Nebula and catalogued as M16; while the nebula itself is catalogued as IC 4703 and the cluster NGC 6611. --Harald Khan  Ճ 15:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catalogue names.... 

message: The images (most or all from Hubble, I believe) are nice, but none is a complete image of the Eagle Nebula.  The main image is identified as just a portion of the nebula, but only in a small-text caption. The large-font title simply reads "Eagle Nebula", creating the impression to the that this is the whole thing.  Full object images, and more details in text and table form than in this wiki article for that matter, can be found at http://www.seds.org/messier/m/m016.html  MikeHousky (talk) 23:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should use :File:Eagle Nebula from ESO.jpg which is a full M16 image, not the spire. We could have the image of the spire further down in the text. ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 09:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Whole Image? 

message: Coming across this article by chane (as with most of my article reading), I've noticed some wierd wording in the captions for each picture.
Under that assumption I'm giong to be bold and remove them but if I've missed something important somebody please message me and change it back. BigHairRef | Talk 03:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Having read the copyright tags on some of the pictures, I've noticed that most of them mention a requriement of attributation to NASA/ESA so I didn't bother with what I wrote above. BigHairRef | Talk 03:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image taglines 

message: Although I read through the talk page and the general concusses was that the supernova hypothesis is incorrect, I sill see it stated in the article.  So I inspected its source, a subdomain of Caltech. The article makes some rather ridiculous assertions. For instance the website states about the supernova, "an event humans most likely witnessed 1,000 to 2,000 years ago as an unusually bright star in the sky." The argument for the pillars destruction is very dependent on the concept that light takes 7,000 years to reach us, so a supernova that occurred 6,000 years ago would still take another 1,000 years to reach us. However according to the cited article, the visible light reached earth 1,000-2,000 years ago. So the changes would have been visible up to 2 thousand years ago, not one thousand from now. As far as I am concerned, the credibility of the source is in the garbage. Burden of proof is on the one who claims it to be true. This source does not do so. In a few days I will delete the entry, unless someone wants to persuade me not to.
:As far as I know, the source is the home page of the Spitzer Telescope, and there is also a video there going a bit more into detail . It is clear, though, that the shockwave needs some time to reach the pillars. --Harald Khan  Ճ 17:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but the problem is that the article states the supernova would have been witnessed 1 to 2 thousand years ago on earth. If this were true, the supernova explosion would easily be recognizable by now. Compare to the Crab Nebula, which is a similar distance from earth. It was a star that was witnessed going supernova 1000 years ago and the result is very recognizable now. The same result should be visible by now at the Eagle Nebula. I acknowledge that the supernova might have happened, but the source contains some obvious factual errors. I am going to do a search for a possible replacement. --68.32.17.238 (talk) 00:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel so bad about this one. After rereading portions of the article, I did come across the information that the supernova wave is already visible. I'm sorry for my screw up and withdraw my argument. --68.32.17.238 (talk) 01:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've rewritten the treatment of the conjectured supernova in the article to try to make the idea clearer.  Given the amount of dust in the area, it should not be too surprising if the SN remnant is not readily visible. It would be a stronger theory, however, if some direct remnant could be pointed to.  E.g., Cassiopeia A exploded in the 1600s and was not noted from Earth at the time because of all the dust -- but it remains a strong radio source. -- Elphion (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supernova again 

message: Images made using the Hubble Space Telescope in 1995, by Jeff Hester and Paul Scowen, greatly improved scientific understanding of processes inside the nebula. One of these, a famous photograph known as the "Pillars of Creation", depicts a large region of star formation. Its small, dark areas are believed to be protostars. The pillar structure of the region resembles that of a much larger star formation region, imaged with the Spitzer Space Telescope in 2005, in Cassiopeia, which is designated W5 and has been dubbed the "Pillars of Creation".
Does this sentence confuse anyone else? It's saying that the pillar structure of the 'Pillars of Creation' resemble a much larger one called, the Pillars of creation???? I just googled W5 and it should be titled, the Pillars of Star Creation. I just signed up to discuss it here, I have no interest in editing a Wiki article, but someone should, that whole paragraph left me confused until I looked up W5 and realized it was a different nebula, with a different name.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rounder421 (talk • contribs) 13:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've rewritten that paragraph to reflect this information. -- Elphion (talk) 22:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  confusing paragraph 

message: I suggest merging Pillars of Creation in to Eagle Nebula. Thanks largely to my own lack of reading comprehension, but also in part my assumption that the two would be one and the same, I just changed the importance of Pillars of Creation within Wikiproject Astronomy to be "mid", thinking of how well known it is as part of the Eagle Nebula. Then I realized they were actually separate. Yet, a large fraction of the coverage in each article is currently overlapping. While the Eagle Nebula article could probably stand to be expanded in areas beyond the Pillars of Creation, the current coverage in that section seems to be at a reasonable level, and to say as much about the Pillars of Creation as needs to be said. Maybe that could change at some point in the future, and if so, they could be split in to separate articles again, but given the current coverage, these two seem like they ought to be one article. James McBride (talk) 07:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge the astrophysical content (composition, fate etc.), but split the astrophotography content to Pillars of Creation (Hubble Space Telescope image) or something similar. The discussion of the HST image does not belong in Eagle Nebula, but the name Pillars of Creation refers to a part of the Eagle Nebula, which should be it that article. The other images (Spitzer, Herschel etc) don't merit their own articles, and aren't shown anyway. They should be merged into Eagle Nebula, especially since they both imaged the entire nebula (not just the pillars). Modest Genius talk 12:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume you mean that "Pillars of Creation" means the "Eagle Nebula" and not the photograph? So that would mean that "Pillars of Creation" article is moved to Pillars of Creation (Hubble Space Telescope image) , and that content between the two articles is rearranged? Why "Pillars of Creation (Hubble Space Telescope image)" instead of Pillars of Creation (astrophograph)  ? 70.49.124.225 (talk) 04:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Pillars of Creation' is the name of an astronomical object, which is part of the Eagle Nebula. It is also the name of a famous image, which depicts the object. But the primary use (and the one used in the astronomical research literature) is as the name of the object. Yes I mean moving the current content of Pillars of Creation to Pillars of Creation (Hubble Space Telescope image), turning Pillars of Creation into a redirect to Eagle Nebula#Pillars of Creation (or turning it into a disambiguation page), and moving the content around so the topics are covered as I suggested above (discussion of the image on it's own page, astrophysics on Eagle Nebula). The exact phrase in brackets was just an example, if there's a better one then please use that. But it's not actually a photograph... Modest Genius talk 10:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Eagle Nebula. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051205045010/http://www.spacetelescope.org/images/html/heic0506b.html to http://www.spacetelescope.org/images/html/heic0506b.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified