Talk:Pinwheel Galaxy

message: I am of the mind that Wikipedia may be jumping on the bandwagon of quoting spurious and dubious articles that may over inflate the apparent size of the Milky Way as it might appear to an outside observer.  The particular galaxy referenced in this article may be enormous, perhaps among some of the largest spirals known.  Yet if we don't know the size of the Milky Way, how can we reasonably compare this galaxy with our own?  I think this section should be rewritten to compensate for the insanity in the 'Milky Way' article.  71.222.77.213 (talk) 09:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree there is a problem here: this galaxy is noted as being significantly smaller than the Milky Way, but having twice as many stars. Given they are similar spirals, it is unlikely that this galaxy is 4x more dense than ours, which is what is implied here Fig (talk) 21:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure and Composition section 

message: I decided to make a few general edits to this page, performing some of the tasks that I now normally perform on many nearby galaxy pages (including the addition of data from the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database and the rearrangement of categories).  This page still has some problems.  Much of the information is unreferenced.  In particular, the page should contain references for the given distance (which, despite the Hubble law, is still difficult to calculate) and for the information on the triggers of the spiral density waves (which I rewrote for clarity but which I did not find a reference for).  If references cannot be found for either of these pieces of information, the information should be deleted. GeorgeJBendo 19:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes on 13 Aug 2006 Edits 

message: Quote: The preceding post gives no actual reasons for opposing. I have never claimed that Submillimeter didn't know astronomy, I have never attacked 132.205.44.134, and my amateur knowledge is just as valid as his as a professional. The way, the truth, and the light 22:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a user account, or are you just here to troll me? You said it yourself: on Wikipedia, an amateur opinion is ewual to a professional one. This doesn't negate the guideline on reliable sources. Rather, reliable sources are (for scientific matters) the means by which we get professional opinion when we need it. It is obvious that a professional would have no better idea than an amateur about common names - likely worse, indeed, as professional astronomers don't use these kind of common names, that's why there is no official standard on them. As far as logical reasoning, anyone can see that I have presented just about every argument there is, many multiple times because you people will not listen, whereas your side has used no reasoning at all. The way, the truth, and the light 20:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: IF you think the above is trolling, rather than, say, a reasoned opinion, you have clearly not been trolled enough to tell the difference. I've never trolled, and was legitimately making an effort to point out that it would be foolish and unmanageable to allow every amateur labeling to stand, especially since it equates to fan-made sites being used for a topic. It's simpler and far more logical to use the official databases. Also, the accusations of no reasoning, trolling, etcetera, bug me a bit. Of course, I'm not so petty as to respond in kind. Yes I have a user account, but I'm somewhere far from my home computer, at a friend's, and I don't wish to use it from here. Though anonomous editing doesn't invalidate viewpoints. In fact, it makes them more relevant, because I'm, say, not counting on edits or a reputation to back up what I'm saying, just merits on their face. 24.224.195.30 02:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section break 

message: The information on the ESA composite image using 51 other images, mentioned in the leading section, is repeated in the Structure and Composition section; the redundant one should be removed ¨¨¨¨  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.115.10.98 (talk) 11:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicate description - redundant ? 

message: Should the 2011-08 supernova  be added to the article? Reference --Mortense (talk) 20:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely relevant; this is a major astronomical event. I've added it, with the two circulars for references. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As to the magnitude 10, it hasn't reached that yet. Therefore, the verb tense isn't right. After it has peaked, if I remember to do it, & if no one else has done so, I'll restore the verb tense. Oaklandguy (talk) 23:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Found a nice ref. for peak magnitude. Oaklandguy (talk) 04:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: 2011-08 supernova

message: These silly nicknames should be avoided (except as footnotes), as they are ambiguous and not in widespread use except among the most novice of amateur astronomers. In the 1980s and earlier 'Pinwheel Galaxy' was M33, not M101. The article should be entitled 'M101' or 'Messier 101'.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.97.94.221 (talk) 14:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: See the rejected proposal from 2007, above. - Rod57 (talk) 12:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Pinwheel Galaxy'

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:M101 hires STScI-PRC2006-10a.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on April 4, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-04-04. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:M101 hires STScI-PRC2006-10a.jpg]] to appear as POTD soon 

message: Is the removed overview image "unnecessary space" ? --Bautsch (talk) 16:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed image