Talk:Milky Way/Archive 2

message: The artcle says that the galaxy is 100,000 ly across and 1000 ly thick (a W/H ratio of 100), but then makes the following statement:
"As a guide to the relative physical scale of the Milky Way, if the galaxy were reduced to 130 km (80 mi) in diameter, the solar system would be a mere 2 mm (0.08 inches) in width."
This statement implies a W/H ratio of 65,000,000!  100 does not equal 65,000,000.  Does anyone know what was actually intended here?  Is this vandalism or was something written just a little different from how it was meant? Xezlec 21:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad math?  Which is correct? 

message: I thought that the structure of the Milky Way was disputed, as in, no one is sure yet whether it's Sbc or SBb? Has the fact that it is a barred spiral been confirmed recently? bob rulz 02:37, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
Well, I don't know back in 2004, but now we are sure it is a barred spiral galaxy. I don't know if they are sure of which type it is. --JorisvS 11:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barred Spiral 

message: 193.170.250.70: Hello! The approximate number of stars in the Milky Way is given once as about "100 billion stars" (header), and once as "200-400 billion stars" (section "Structure"). Even if stellar statistics is a rather vague business (if not in this case even a mere shot into the dark), shouldn't the number at least be consistent within the article? Or am I getting something work? Otherwise, keep up the good work. Bye, CalRis.
:And the 4th paragraph of the article "Star" says 300 billion.  Maybe someone should count them.24.64.223.203 02:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It would take a rather long time to try to count all of the stars in the Milky Way. Hardee67 02:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless you live after the invention of computers. Xezlec 22:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I've heard that recent computers are capable of multiplying a number by 1.5.  And yes, I'm just being a dork at this point.  ;-) Xezlec 03:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent: number of stars in Milky Way 

message: Someone removed all the <ref> tags, and now they are improperly cited. Should they be put back, or should a different format be used? Unfortunately, I don't know how to use the <ref> style... Ardric47 03:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed this. A pair of anonymous users munged the refs. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 04:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I've been reviewing this article, and have determined that it meets the qualifications for Good Article Status. It is well written, is factual and well cited, broad in coverage, neutral in tone, stable, and well imaged. I made the small change of including the Galaxy infobox, but otherwise haven't been a part of the editing of this article.
Now that it is a Good Article, editors should review the qualifications for Featured Article Status and set their standards high! This could be a Featured Article at some point, if it continues to improve. Phidauex 20:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Article! 

message: I noticed that the Galaxy infobox was removed from the article. I think it is better to keep it there, but since there is obviously some contention, I thought I'd ask for some more input.
I find myself (and suspect this to be true of many readers) using the Wikipedia science articles to get quick facts, and make quick comparisons. Is Andromeda bigger than the Milky Way? etc. The Infobox format makes that fast and easy. You don't need to go reading around to find the relevant data, rather, it is placed to the side for easy access for readers looking for a quick tidbit.
I don't think that the fact that we are currently inside the Milky Way is a good reason to remove this 'quick access' to relevant information, since it takes up little more space than the image itself. What do you all think? Phidauex 00:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Galaxy Infobox? 

message: Circeus removed:
:We are presently about 1/8 of an orbit before perigalacticon (the sun's closest approach to the center).
This information is correct (or nearly so) and interesting.  Some long time ago, I added it based on work I was doing for a non-wiki project, and now I can't find the appropriate reference.  I'd like to encourage others to go looking, but we are definitely nearing perigalacticon now.  Dragons flight 02:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perigalacticon 

message: :This article is good, but it lacks allot of detailed information about the size, shape and structure of the Milky Way Galaxy.
:For instance, it is not stated how large the Central galactic bulge is. What is its radius? And how much does it bulge out from the normal thickness of the galactic disk?
:Also, we are given values for size and mass, but what is the Volume of the galaxy? (i.e. in cubic light years).
:What is the stellar density of the Galaxy? Meaning how many stars do we find per cubic light year? Is this value different for different parts of the Galaxy? I assume the core is denser than the rest but how dense? What is the distribution of matter in the Galaxy?
:I think these are some of the questions that need to be answered if this is to be a comprehensive article.
:--Hibernian 02:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like the article to compare the size of the Milky Way with those of other galaxies. -Pgan002 23:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs more info on the size, shape and structure of the Galaxy 

message: SDSS has found four new satellites to the Milky Way: Coma Berenices dwarf, Canes Venatici II dwarf, Hercules dwarf, and Leo IV dwarf.--JyriL talk 11:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was No Move. Yanksox 17:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Four new satellite galaxies 

message: Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional short explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Oppose. I think it should be left as is -- the galaxy should trump a candy bar named after the galaxy, especially in an encyclopedia. I'd guess (though I can't prove it) that far more people looking for "Milky Way" on an encyclopedia are looking for the galaxy than are looking for the candy bar. Most of what people want to know about a candy bar is included on the label or can be discovered by eating one.  If they want to know something else, they can find it through the disambiguation wikilink at the top of the galaxy article. -- Moondigger 21:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Note: This article has a small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and currently would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 01:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Re-Review and In-line citations 

message: Is it just me or does 'Although the Milky Way is but one of billions of galaxies in the universe, the Galaxy has special significance to humanity as it is the home of the Solar System.' sound like it was written by some sort of alien?
Seeing as how most people reading Wikipedia will be humble human beings, is this pompous phrasing really necessary? Auspiciously 17:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro Paragraph 

message: I added a paragraph to the section Speed through space explaining the speed through CMB. Maybe this should be explained in the CMB article, but given the presence of that section, I believe it was needed for completeness. Any comments are welcome. Franjesus 16:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motion through CMB 

message: There's a large gap between "Structure" and its paragraph.  I tried to fix it but I'm pretty poor at changing coding.  Anybody wanna take a go at closing that gap?
(1sttomars 21:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was No Merger ~ trialsanderrors 20:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gap 

message: Here is a citation  that gives -20.9 for the absolute visual magnitude of the milky way.  Given the uncertainty in estimating this, I'm sure that there are other references that would give a slightly different value.  Absolute magnitude gives -20.5 but does not cite the source.--mikeu 16:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  absolute visual magnitude 

message: Shouldn't the infobox used in the Andromeda Galaxy article be used in this one too? - 69.19.14.31 22:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At least half the categories don't make any sense when applied to the Milky Way. Chrislintott 22:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: Someone should consider making archives of past discussions. - 69.19.14.31 22:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is is now set for Werdnabot to archive comments older than 1 year.  The first archive pass will run within a day.--mikeu 01:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 

message: I fixed the clutter piled up images were making here. Zazaban 03:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images. 

message: I'm skeptical about that Hubble classification of SBbc for the Milky Way. Neither of the citations given for that sentence actually confirm the classification. Various sources cite different classifications.
* Galaxy morphological classification gives SBb.
* SEDS gives "Sb or Sc"; more recently SB or SAB.
* SAO gives Sb or Sc (Sbc).
* Astronomy Adventures gives SBc
* Rolf A. Jansen at ASU gives Sb or Sc, and barred.
* University of Maryland gives Sbc or SBbc.
:&c.
The SBbc appears to be somewhat speculative, merging earlier classifications with the barred-spiral classification. So if there is an accurate 2005 classification for the Milky Way, does somebody have a good source? Thank you. — RJH (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved the two references from the classification down to the sentence about the Milky Way mass, where they are more relevant. — RJH (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A portion of the text has been rewritten to try and satisfy this. — RJH (talk) 17:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Milky Way Hubble classification 

message: :The Milky Way's absolute magnitude, which cannot be measured directly, is assumed by astronomical convention to be −20.5, although other authors give an absolute magnitude of -21.3. 
Shouldn't there be a reference here? Hornberry 23:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been looking for info on this.  I could not find a source that detailed how the magnitude was estimated.  Here's a note that I posted above.  "Here is a citation  that gives -20.9 for the absolute visual magnitude of the milky way.  Given the uncertainty in estimating this, I'm sure that there are other references that would give a slightly different value.  Absolute magnitude gives -20.5 but does not cite the source.--mikeu 16:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation 

message: I reverted the addition of an infobox   See comments above.  Most of the info was not applicable (coordinates, constellation), confusing (distance) or just wrong (Messier never labeled it M0)  --mikeu 03:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  infobox (reverted) 

message: The galactic disk, which bulges outward at the galactic center, has an estimated diameter of about 100,000 light-years. The distance from the Sun to the galactic center is now estimated at 26,000 ± 1400 light-years while older estimates could put our parent star as far as 35,000 light-years from the central bulge.
So it does have an estimated diameter of 100,000 light years? There should be a reference here. Hornberry 23:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That reference gives 70-100,000 ly for the diameter of the galaxy, and then 10,000 ly for the diameter of the central bulge.--mikeu 12:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More citation problems 

message: This article currently says that the Milky Way is "outside the Galactic core, about 1,000 light-years in thickness", but cites no source for this information. I've spent the past half-hour trying to chase down a reliable source for this, but have found only wildly different numbers. Infoplease's "Size and Shape of the Milky Way" (supposedly based on The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th ed) claims "its average thickness is 10,000 light-years, increasing to 30,000 light-years at the nucleus" — an order of magnitude larger. One of my old college textbooks, Astronomy, The Cosmic Journey (1982, , table 23.1, p. 510) gives a table that indicates that we are about 3,300 light-years (1,000 parsecs) from the "edge of the galactic disk in Ζ direction", making the total about 6600 ly (assuming the Sun is very near the galactic plane). Other less reliable sources give numbers typically between 1,000 and 10,000. Oddly, one of the most detailed sources I found (which can hardly be considered reliable) is "A Tour Through the Milky Way" in Star Trek Cartography (STDimension.com), which claims 2,000 light-years "average" thickness (5,000 ly at the center) and states that the Sun is 50 ly off the galactic plane.
Do we have any solid sources for a thickness of the Milky Way that agree with each other? Ideally, I'd like us to be able to cite figures for the maximum thickness at the center and approximate thickness in our region. (Most informal sources seem to quote "average" thicknesses, which seems an odd datum for either the sphere-like core or the narrowing boundaries of the arms.) Thanks for any assistance. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Galactic thickness 

message: I think there ought to be an image of the Milky Way as seen from the ground, i.e. , but I have no idea where to put this - the article seems pretty good, and the only spot lacking an image is the mythology section.  Any ideas? --Keflavich 02:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it's an impressive image. I wonder though if it wouldn't in some sense be redundant with the panorama image in the "Sun's location" section? Might I suggest the Milky Way (mythology) article page as one location for this picture? — RJH (talk) 18:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps.  You get a very different view with that image, though.  I think this might be a good choice to replace the first image in the article, the artist's conception.  There are already other diagrams showing spiral structure, and I think this one serves as a better overview image.  I'll make the change in order to promote discussion, if nothing else.  --Keflavich 18:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there an explanation as to why the Milky Way can be seen from Earth, using the naked eye, and of all places Death Valley? Thanks. Berserkerz Crit 11:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, prior to electric light it could be seen everywhere, since we are embedded in it. As far as I know, all human cultures call it "the sky milk" or some variation thereof. Speciate 04:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Milky Way in the sky 

message: Although the lead takes pains to make it seem like the Milky Way is nothing special, that section looks like it was just a backlash against the rest of the article, which is overloaded with "we" and "us" and other inappropriate language.  This article needs a certain detachment that's lacking, recognizing what's important to the reader (selection of content) but not overpersonalizing in an inappropriate way (selection of words).  The lead ought to put the fact that it's the galaxy containing earth first, before mentioning that it's part of the local group , and the rest of it should be freed of first person plurals and the patronizing stuff. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree about the local group; the subsequent sections are just out of order. Agree with changing the wording. —Viriditas | Talk 07:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  tone/wording 

message: Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 12:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New image, please proofread! 

message: The article states that "The Milky Way is moving at around 552 km/s with respect to the photons of the CMB". How can this be? I thought the theory of relativity postulated that the speed of light (hence, photons) is constant (~300,000 km/s) regardless of the frame of reference. --Itub 11:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Milky Way is moving at around 552 km/s with respect to the photons of the CMB? 

message: This is an RFC request for additional input regarding the name/focus of this article and potential split into two articles.  The structure of this article was recently changed (August 23rd) from focusing on the galaxy to focusing on the "band of light".  Many editors believe the two concepts should be split into seperate articles but don't agree on what should be at "Milky Way" or what the split articles should be called.  See:  #The "Milky Way" and "The Milky Way Galaxy" are two different things.
: I support the split.  "Milky Way" should be the phenomenon in the sky as seen from the earth.  "Milky Way Galaxy" should be the objective astronomical science about the galaxy as a whole.  Each article should have an appropriate link to the other in its lead. VisitorTalk 06:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I oppose the split. The "Milky Way", apart from also referring to a chocolate bar, is primarily used in reference to the Galaxy. If I entered Milky Way and pressed Go, I would expect to be taken to an article on the Milky Way galaxy, not an article on a band of light in the sky. The band of light is simply the galaxy as seen from earth, so I don't agree that the "Milky Way" and "The Milky Way Galaxy" are two different things. I also read the discussion and am in full agreement with those who oppose the the split. Alisdair37 12:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose The name "galaxy" means milk. Also, why should we distinguish between observations that have be made with the naked eye in the distant past and observations made more recently with more sophisticated instruments? The present article is structured nicely from a historical point of view, going from prehistory to the discovery that there are other galaxies besides the Milky Way, to the present. Splitting the article will leave both as pathetically small rumps, especially the main Milky Way as splash of stars article. Speciate 21:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Oppose My experience is that Milky Way generally refers to the galaxy and the article can discuss the band of light without a split being helpful. WilliamKF 04:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Sagittarius Star Cloud documents a piece of the galaxy that only exists because of how we see things, since it's not a gravitationally bound object, or formerly one... We only "see" it as a separate piece because of various effects on light that is blocked by intervening objects. 132.205.44.5 22:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't really view it as an issue that needs to be discussed until the "band of light" dispute is (hopefully) quickly resolved - after which time I'm sure that the article's layout will be corrected/improved.  Until then, it's just making unnecessary work.—Mrand T-C 18:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Comment. I don't mind whether the article is split or not, but either way, the galaxy as a whole is the primary topic. From someone who is an amateur astronomer, I would expect to see the Milky Way article discuss the galaxy as a whole first. Doing otherwise makes Wikipedia look very silly in my opinion. I personally think that the discussion of or article about the band of light should include, say, a map showing where various features are in the band - e.g. the various star clouds, the open clusters, nebulae etc. The Milky Way (astronomy) article could be made into a decent article on its own (actually looks like someone has already created it). But the discussion of the Milky Way as the galaxy needs to be the focus of this article. Richard B 12:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose. I've given some thought to this, and in my opinion, this topic would be best served as one article about the galaxy, which then later on describes the galaxy's view from Earth. A second article, something like say, the Visible extent of the Milky Way could then be created to give a detailed look at the band in the sky and its visible features - which would be treated as a sub-page of the Milky Way article. Richard B 14:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Oppose split on philosophical grounds alone I commented above about what name this article, or different parts of this article, should have.  I didn't not specifically address the idea of splitting the article, because it seems obvious to me that it should be split if and only if there is enough information for two separate articles and this article is too long.  Yes, one can distinguish referring to light in the sky and where the light comes from, but the subjects are inextricably intertwined.  Presumably, people interested in one (say, what our galaxy is like) would be interested in the other (how much of it we can see in what lighting conditions, and how we discovered our galaxy), even if they didn't think about it before coming the article.  The same is presumably true in the other direction, as well.  If the articles are split for length and readability they should very prominently reference each other to support that great advantage of Wikipedia; being able to learn more than you meant to when you go to an article.  Enuja  (talk)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enuja (talk • contribs) 21:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC: Structure of this article and potential split 

message: At the top of this talkpage is a link to a reviewed GA version. Comparing that article to this one is night-and-day. I think we should go back to that article and work in some of the naked-eye observational stuff into the article. What do others think? Nondistinguished 14:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bad idea. The GA article had one major flaw: if I tried to pipe link to that thing in the sky from an article where it was in that context, it led the reader to a dead end, an article that was primarily about a different theoretical thing with no way to resolve it. It was an article that was technically correct and encyclopedically deficient. (I have made remarks about encyclopedic requirements here ).  Halfblue 18:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This objection makes no sense. The article was better in its previous incarnation. It may have been deficient, but it is better than this one. The way to address problems is to add to that version, not to start from this flawed version. Nondistinguished 19:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Nondistinguished -- the current form of the article is poor compared to its previous incarnation.  It really needs to be reverted. -- Moondigger 20:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I do agree with Nondistinguished. Let's improve from a good article, rather than a total change of focus as seems to be the case. Whilst we're at it, let's also improve on Milky Way (astronomy) to prevent the "dead end" that Halfblue suggests currently exists. Richard B 20:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is Milky Way (astronomy) should properly redirect to this article. As was pointed out by editors wiser than myself above, splitting the article is okay if it's done for length. We shouldn't be doing it simply to split the article, however, since the two "distinct" topics are interrelated. Nondistinguished 21:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, but it's an option to have it as a "subpage", i.e. basically a "For more information see ........" I think you could add considerable depth to it, which might be too much on this article. Richard B 21:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: But we have articles on ship classes and individual ships, and those are interrelated, and some of them are stub-short (all ships in the class and the class article itself). Here we have sufficient material for non-stub articles for each topic. (and an overview article, for the galaxy, band of light, and mythology). As it is, the treatment of the subject in the GA article is severely biased/greatly weighted towards the Galaxy concept, a split article would give good weighting to the night sky concept, instead of having it lost in the galaxy article. 132.205.44.5 22:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not biased, it's just incomplete and the current version is a hack-job. I suggest adding more to this article and if it gets too unweildly to content fork then. Content forking now is putting the cart before the horse. Nondistinguished 12:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The article wasn't reverted "all the way back to a year ago". You are mischaracterizing the situation and behaving like you own the place. Nondistinguished 12:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert to GA version 

message: I am reverting the article back (again) to its state as of  17:28, 10 September 2007 User:GRBerry. Please note: there needs to be reliable sourced reference to back up these revision, such as the ones I have provided. Wikipedia is not a democracy so you cannot simply make up articles based on consensus and you definitely can't base it on your personal views. There is absolutely no reason to revert this article all the way back to a year ago unless there are many other things wrong with it (things that need to be pointed out and justified with reliable sources).Halfblue 03:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article wasn't reverted "all the way back to a year ago". You are mischaracterizing the situation and behaving like you own the place. Nondistinguished 12:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please stop

message: I have a couple of questions:
*If the supermassive black hole at the center of our galaxy is its brightest feature, then how come we can't see it from Earth, when we can see other features of the galaxy (eg. the Death Valley photo)?
*If our galactic core is indeed a black hole, how can it be "bright" at all? Black holes get their name from being black, ie. non-light-emitting. I understand supermassive black holes are less dense than other black holes, so is that the answer? They're so much "less-dense" that they can reflect light?
I'm curious about these and also suggest that they be addressed in the article. Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)06:40, September 12, 2007
:The black hole itself is not the brightest feature. What we see associated with the black hole is the infalling gas that is radiating mostly in the x-rays. Nondistinguished 12:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides, any visual light that is emitted by the central black hole will be blocked by the dustclouds that obscure our view of the galactic core. DaMatriX 17:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions 

message: I decided to see how other encyclopedia handle this issue and found that Brittanica has an article on Milky Way Galaxy which, in my mind, is a beautiful way around this. This is the first line from Brittanica:
: large 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.
Great. So let's do this. Make this article the article on "Milky Way" and make a new article called "Milky Way Galaxy".
There is only one problem: we must disambiguate the wikilinks. Someone needs to go through and make sure that all the pipes to Milky Way are repiped to Milky Way Galaxy because, indeed, the majority of the links to Milky Way are intended to be linked to galaxy rather than to the "band of light".
I have decided to be bold and have split the articles along these lines. How does this sound?
Nondistinguished 14:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An additional problem is how things are referred to in this article. This article should only refer to the galaxy when talking about the Milky Way as a galaxy. Oftentimes, this is muddled in the text. Nondistinguished 14:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with this solution, and it appears exactly identical to an earlier solution proposed by Halfblue.  It will take time to clear up the existing ambiguities, and clean up the wikilinks; I feel this should not be regarded as particularly remarkable, since Wikipedia is a work in progress.  Onward. 67.166.145.20 14:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I point out the similarity between this and Andromeda Galaxy. Nondistinguished 14:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed.  I suggest the "Names and Mythology" section of each page be swapped.  Objections? 67.166.145.20 15:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. Nondistinguished 16:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed compromise 

message: The article should state the fact that the 1000LY (avg)/12000LY (core) thickness measurements do not include halo objects. These halo objects are often included in diametric measurements. 65.166.89.2 (talk) 17:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  USydney size clarifications 

message: I discussed some of the problems with this article on this slashdot thread
99.235.196.247 (talk) 13:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There seems to have been a lot of misinterpretation of this result by Wikipedia editors.  As you say in the linked thread, it refers to the gas disk and not the stellar disk and so doesn't replace the earlier value of 1,000 light years, which is for the stars and is well-established.  Both values are averages.  I've tried to clean up the confusion in the article, making the difference between the 2 estimates more clear, but it's far from perfect.  Although the recent research is unpublished, I've left it in since the size section previously lacked any mention of the different components of the disk.  Cosmo0 (talk) 14:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thickness/U Sydney Press Release problems 

message: "The Galactic Halo extends outward, but is limited in size by the orbits of the two Milky Way satellites, the Large and the Small Magellanic Clouds, whose perigalacticon is at ~180,000 light-years.[12]"
This point doesn't seem to be corresponding with;
"Once they (The Magellanic Clouds) were thought to be orbiting our Milky Way galaxy. However, new research seems to indicate that this is not the case.[1][2]"
Quoted from the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magellanic_Clouds article.
Perhaps this point should be reviewed. Keep up the good work here!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.161.18.155 (talk) 21:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Size' paragraph information not in line with 'Magellanic Clouds' article? 

message: How about the velocity of the Milky Way from the "center" of the Big Bang? RobertM525 (talk) 08:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Big Bang had no center, since by definition it happened everywhere.  The velocity of the Milky Way can, however, be measured relative to the rest frame of the CMB, which is the remnant of the Big Bang.  The value is given in Milky Way#Velocity. Cosmo0 (talk) 11:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Velocity 

message: feels like shrinking the panorama.  I feel this is a bad idea and hurts the article.
Other opinions?  Dragons flight (talk) 19:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The original size of the thumb at 700px is unacceptable.  Wikipedia pages look different on different machines.  Read: Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images, specifically: "Some users need to configure their systems to display large text; forced large thumbnails can leave little width for text, making reading difficult". The new gallery format is much more satisfactory and improves the article considerably.  It also includes both panorama's instead of just one. Jdrewitt (talk) 19:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We have panoramic images on many pages, e.g. .  By ensuring no other text occupies the same horizontal space you eliminate the crowding concern.  And, yes, panaromas are informative and useful to the general reader.  In my opinion, shrinking this image (even in the gallery) substantially detracts from the purpose of the section, i.e. to describe the appearance of the galaxy.  Dragons flight (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The user can click on the image in the gallery and see the image in whatever resolution they wish.  However, for the purposes of making the article 'look' good, the new format is more satisfactory and is a vast improvement considering the issues I have highlighted with the previous format. However, the opinion of other users who are neutral to this dispute would be greatly appreciated. Jdrewitt (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I've looked at the two versions (specifically  and ) and, personally, I think it looked fine as it was originally.  That said, I don't have any particular objection to the current layout either, but if I had to choose between them I'd pick the former (I'm just referring to the one image here, not to the other changes that have been made). Cosmo0 (talk) 22:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, particularly as the former layout, not only makes things look wierd, but also demotes a former featured picture , as shown below  to the sidelines.  Jdrewitt (talk) 07:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Panorama 

message: The image shown of Herschel's illustration of the Milky Way is flipped 180 degrees on the horizontal axis. The original PhilTrans paper (which is sitting in front of me on my desk) has the bifurcated arms on the left, not the right. I've made a note to that effect in the text describing it. Sorry to not actually just flip it; I'm new to Wikipedia. Thanks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.31.151.2 (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historic Herschel graphic 

message: The infobox lists speed relative to the Universe. That's meaningless. Does anyone know what this speed is actually in reference to?—David618 t Fiziker t 20:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that suggests that the number isn't "meaningless", but it hardly explains to Wikipedia's readers what it does mean. Motion cannot conventionally be defined without being relative to something else, and "the cosmos" isn't adequately and specifically described in a way to make this comprehensible to most other than astrophysicists (assuming even they all agree, which I'm not sure is true given the apparent recency of some of the data and theories on this aspect of cosmic anisotropy). I also suspect that this may be the only galaxy article for which we have such a number, which further begs the question of what it really means to a general audience. In short, I'm not sure there's a point to including this number in an infobox, as if it's a standard, general measurement with no questions over its meaning or derivation. It sounds more like something that needs significant explanation, far more in fact than one can find at Cosmic microwave background radiation#Velocity relative to CMB anisotropy or in the first paragraph at Anisotropy#Physics. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This should be taken out of the infobox and properly explained in the main part of the article. I might get around to looking up the information in the coming week, but if John D. Croft or anyone who already knows what this means can do it, it would be good. —Fiziker t 14:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's already an explanation in the text.  I've changed the title in the info box, to make it more clear what the number refers to, and linked it to Cosmic microwave background.  I also updated the value in the infobox to agree with the one given in the text, which is correct according to the paper cited (the original citation was to an encyclopedia, which is where the 'relative to the universe' language seems to have come from). Cosmo0 (talk) 20:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, Cosmo0. Stupid of me not to have noticed the explanation in this article after the trouble I went to to review the other pertinent articles. I'm still not sure this number belongs in the infobox, but at least the label is more specific and has a reference cited. I wonder if it might not be better to direct the inbox label link to the paragraph in this article, which is a more direct explanation, but also has links to those relevant articles. I've added a span-id tag to that paragraph (linking to Milky Way#cmb) in case we decide to do this. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speed Relative to the Universe 

message: It would be good to put in a map of the sky that shows the "path" of the Milky Way. I looked all over Wikipedia and couldn't find any decent map of the whole sky or a map showing the Milky Way. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 23:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But I would prefer a clickable map of the whole Milky Way in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caco de vidro (talk • contribs) 9:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map needed