Talk:Triangulum Galaxy

message: I've read in several (non-wikipedia) articles that the star formation rate is much higher in M33 then in M31 or the MilkyWay, but I can't find an official source. Could someone assist me in this? DaMatriX 21:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Star Formation 

message: The distance measurements to the Triangulum Galaxy deserve a subsection with a thorough discussion (and possibly a table).  The infobox should not be constrained to one distance measurement.  I may try this myself.  (Also, the reference used for the distance at this time, which is Bonanos et al. (2006), admits that its distance measurement is high.  They explain this discrepancy as a problem with everyone else's measurement, but this would need to be verified.) GeorgeJBendo 21:23, 29 are appropriate. October 2006 (UTC)
: Right now, main article lists 3.14 Mly, and subsection sais 2.92 ± 0.13 Mly (3.14, obviously, does NOT fall into this range. Someone should fix this? 82.207.25.235
:: I will try to do it in the next week.  An lengthy section will need to be written on the topic.  Dr. Submillimeter 20:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distance Measurement 

message: Here is an alternate passage that I suggest for the article:
:The galaxy is also sometimes informally referred to as the "Pinwheel Galaxy" by some amateur astronomy references and in some public outreach websites.  However, the SIMBAD Astronomical Database, a professional astronomy database that contains formal designations for astronomical objects, indicates that the name "Pinwheel Galaxy" should be used to refer to Messier 101, and several other  amateur astronomy resources and other public outreach websites also identify Messier 101 as the "Pinwheel Galaxy".
Note that this discussion provides a more thorough discussion on the use of the name in amateur and professional astronomy and also places the references into context.  Also note that this version avoids referencing the unreviewed websites of individual people, which are not reliable references (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources).
Note that the SIMBAD Astronomical Database is a professional astronomy resource maintained by the Centre de Données astronomiques de Strasbourg, a French national research institution that has signed agreements with NASA, PPARC, and science agentions in several other countries.  This is a professional resource used by professional astronomers.  A specific concern was raised about the ability of the SIMBAD Astronomical Database to resolve duplicate names for astronomical objects and so it would potentially give inaccurate information for both Messier 33 and Messier 101.  However, note that SIMBAD uses notes to indicate when celestial objects have duplicate names or are associated with larger objects.  (See, for example, search results for NGC 6027,NGC 6027a, NGC 6027b, NGC 6027c, NGC 6027d, and NGC 6027e as one example.)
:Mooning and slavering over SIMBAD is senseless.  Its nomenclature has been established for its own purpose, which is getting SIMBAD to work.  It doesn't correspond to NED, and there's no reason it should.  If editorial policy is an issue, it needs to be thought out from first principles, which of course could use establishing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.166.67.2 (talk) 03:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The suggested text above looks fine.  In regards to the use of pinwheel, there are other galaxies besides M101 that are sometimes descriptively referred to as a "pinwheel."  Besides the M33 Triangulum Pinwheel there is also M83 The Southern Pinwheel Galaxy.  These other pinwheels typically have a qualifier in front of the name to avoid confusion with M101.  Just because unreliable sources  drop the qualifier and refer to M33 as the Pinwheel Galaxy does not make it a commonly used name.--mikeu 15:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not trying to muddy the waters, but I also find sources that list M99 as the "Pinwheel Galaxy". Some compromise by calling M99 the "Coma Pinwheel galaxy". Other sources refer to M33 as "Triangulum Pinwheel Galaxy" while M83 is called the "Southern Pinwheel Galaxy". A "pinwheel galaxy" disambiguation page might actually be beneficial, and we could include the above explanation. — RJH (talk) 22:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There already is a disambiguation page at Pinwheel Galaxy (disambiguation). See the requested move at Talk:Pinwheel Galaxy#Requested move. The way, the truth, and the light 23:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay. Unfortunately even press releases from professional astronomical organizations appear to suffer from ambiguity. A news release from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics lists M33 as the pinwheel galaxy. Another from the STScI lists M101 as the pinwheel galaxy. I almost think we would need an IAU nomenclature committee to settle this one. My personal preference would be to call M101 "pinwheel" (because of NED) and M33 "triangulum pinwheel", just to limit the ambiguity. I'm fine with Dr. Submillimeter's suggestion, although it seems a little unwieldy. Could it be inserted as a note? — RJH (talk) 18:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Compromise proposal

message: I'm not happy with the picture of M33.
M33 is one of the 'biggest', galaxies in the northern hemisphere and a favorite target for astrophotographers and amateur astronomers. 
But what one will see (on a 'normal' photography - or with a fast Telescope) is completeley different from what the picture shows us here. One has to open the picture and read the full description to understand that this image shows the Ultraviolet-Part of the spectrum - which is invisible to the human eye! This means what the picture shows can never be seen this way - and even worst, some really bright, yellow stars completeley dissapear from the picture, since they are relativeley dark in the UV-Spectrum. The same is true for many of the really interesting details which can be seen in the visible spectrum, especially dust and many 'nebulae'. Even the interesting region NGC 604 which is discussed in the article is just visible as a tiny white dot without any structure. Not to talk about the lifeless false-colors.
Dont take me wrong, the NASA-Picture from Spitzer is very interesting - but just a bit missplaced at this point. It's somehow as if a wiki-article about a well known person would show an x-ray of his head instead of a 'normal' photograph...
Therefore, I replace the picture with a photography I made by mysef with a typical small (10cm) amateur-telescope and a optimized digital SLR (Canon 20Da).
Sure it's not a perfect astronomy picture - but it shows a lot more details as the one from spitzer, has a much better resolution (one can even identify NGC 604). And it shows how the galaxy really looks like in - more or less - real colors!
I'm sure there are much better amateur-pictures or professionel real-color-pictures of M31 out there. I'm happy to see my picture replaced with a significantly better one - but please dont replace it with a picture showing infrared, x-ray, ultraviolett or any other invisible radiation. Mschcsc 14:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: * Heaviest stellar black hole found in nearby galaxy
* Chandra press room Chandra X-ray Observatory 
--George100 (talk) 08:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Black Hole Found

message: —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mu301 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Ive heard the name is Triangular,  not Triangulum--24.6.203.163 (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is most definitely "triangulum", named after the constellation it is in.Todd (talk) 04:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the name correct? 

message: Is M33 the most distant object visible to the naked eye? It's further than the Andromeda Galaxy, so if it can be seen by the naked eye (and according to other wikipedia articles it can) then it probably would be 128.232.228.174 (talk) 17:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: M81 may hold the naked eye record. -- Kheider (talk) 11:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: M81 at visual magnitude 6.9 is just a bit too faint for the average naked eye (6.5 limiting).  The article on Gamma Ray Burst GRB_080319B does list M33 as the most distant "permanent" (i.e., not a GRB or nova) object visible to the naked eye. 68.33.111.102 (talk) 03:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most distant object visible to the naked eye? 

message: shouldn't this be Triangulum, NOT Triangulum Galaxy? 121.218.193.145 (talk) 07:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: I am just going to say from the outset that the two amateur photos are both incredible. I am not trying to pick favorites or anything, but the fact is this article looks terrible, and its mostly because there are way too many pictures. There should only be one picture of the object itself (I picked the one where the object is more centered in the frame), and I don't see any reason why it needs a picture of how it looks in a software program. The celestial map is useful and I think the NGC 604 pic is also useful (and really cool looking). Anything more and the article looks cluttered. Daniel J Simanek (talk) 06:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would make one refinement to that sentiment: M33 may have interesting features that are most visible in X-ray, IR, or whatever, justifying separate pictures.  But not merely redundant visible-light images. Jmacwiki (talk) 20:21, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree - IR & UV etc justify separate images, but their orientations seem all over the place. Can we indicate at least the images with a non-standard orientation ? - Rod57 (talk) 14:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture overload 

message: The text currently states that,
:M33 was also catalogued independently by William Herschel on September 11, 1784 number H V.17.
However, Herschel received a copy of Messier's catalogue in 1781 and immediately set out to view those objects. Thus it is unclear how he could have "independently" catalogued M33. I was "bold" and removed that word from the text because of the absence of citation.—RJH (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Independence? 

message: M33 rotation curve often used to show effects of dark matter. Why not mention here ? How much dark matter is M33 calculated to have ? - Rod57 (talk) 11:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention rotation curve ? 

message: I have removed this claim – again. While it was sourced, various sources give widely varying estimates, so the Milky Way may or may not be more massive than Andromeda Galaxy. That would require a more distinctive discussion for which this article really isn't the right place, and we should leave it to the respective pages. If those articles show a wide acceptance of the required estimates, then it can be added here as well. For Triangulum, it's quite sufficient to show that it's smaller than the other two as it is. --Zac67 (talk) 07:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claim for Milky Way being largest in mass 

message: The article contains the phrase "Under exceptionally good viewing conditions with no light pollution, the Triangulum Galaxy can be seen with the 20/20 vision naked eye" but makes no mention of which hemisphere of the Earth one would need to be on for this to be possible?  Is it visible from the Northern or the Southern hemisphere?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.156.255.250 (talk) 07:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Infobox already gives declination as +30 degrees, which (correctly) makes it Northern. Jmacwiki (talk) 06:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarify from which hemisphere it is visible 

message: I'm not sure what the purpose of the section regarding planetary nebulae is. It either needs more clarification regarding its importance to the Triangulum galaxy in particular or may need to be removed. Patchworkpieces (talk) 21:35, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I have since removed this section. Patchworkpieces (talk) 01:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance of PN section?