Talk:Galactic Center

message: Two notes for future editors :-
# Capitalisation - it is the Galactic Center (capital G capital C) because it is the centre of a specific galaxy, namely the Milky Way, so it is a proper noun - just like Central Park, the Panama Canal, the Eddystone Lighthouse etc etc.
# Spelling - the originator of the article used the American English spelling "Center" so I have retained it throughout the article for consistency. 
-- Gandalf61
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gandalf61 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 20 November 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fair enough but we should mention that it can also be spelt "Galactic Centre". Jimp 09:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes for Editors

message: I find  "It is located at a distance of about 8 kiloparsecs in the brightest part of the Milky Way, in the direction of the constellation Sagittarius" confusing, but I'm not sure how to clean it up. One step forward would be to indicate that the distance is from earth, and it's probably better to use light years instead of kiloparsecs. Could somebody who knows more about astronomy take a swing at it? Thanks! --William Pietri 08:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  actually, Rₒ - the scientific notation for the distance to the Galactic Center (please add this notation into the section about the distance) - is the distance from the Sun (not the Earth as is erroneously indicated in the first paragraph of the article - would someone please make the correction) to the Galactic Center. Naturally this is not really significant considering the margin of error at between 4 and 8% depending of the source, far more then the distance from the Earth to the Sun. You can read in "The Distance to the Center of the Galaxy" - (open pdf and read first two sentences of introduction) - that is an older paper then those cited below but the only one I was able to open and read into, the others have to be paid for.Zigomar7 (talk) 16:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

text: I've updated the distance given the best recent work (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...692.1075G), though (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...689.1044G) is equally applicable, and very similar. The two papers Jcline1 cites give less accurate (but consistent) values for the distance using different data, and the best data available should be used. Trefusius (talk) 13:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

text: the best and most recent estimates are by reid et al., 2014: http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.5377 . the parsec is the standard unit of physical distance in astronomy; light years is obsolete except when distances are stated on "star trek".   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macevoy (talk • contribs) 06:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Distance to the Galactic Centre

message: Deleted Astrological Cr*p —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.176.105.40 (talk) 10:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted Astrological Cr*p 

message: The second half of the article stated unequivocally that there is a black hole at the Galactic Center. The first half qualified this, and implied that there might not be.
There is a published article in the journal Nature that states there is no doubt that there is a black hole in the center. I edited this article to reflect that certainty. At this point (six years later) there are numerous confirming articles.
Any editor who wishes to change that must cite a reliable reference.
Nick Beeson (talk) 03:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Black Hole

message: There are two good pictures (specifically this one and this one) that could be very useful within this article. However I've not been able to fit them without changing the aspect of the article too much. Someone else with a greater sense of order could do it.--ElPeski (talk) 23:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Added using Wikipedia:Gallery tag. --Petersam (talk) 20:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I also recommend this one (but it's a bit of self-promotion so I don't want to add it myself):  --Keflavich (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: More pictures of the center

message: Might there be something surrounding the core? In spore, there are The Grox, and they try to let you not go through to it. Is the great rift a clue in to something preventing us from seeing the center or something?  DownAirStairsConditioner (talk) 15:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Might there be? 

message: It seems more logical to me that the 'c' should not be capitalized. I'd be hard convinced that this is a proper name. __meco (talk) 13:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a proper place name. By convention, Galactic Center (capitalized) refers to the center of the Milky Way.  The generic galactic center article is "bulge (astronomy)" on Wikipedia. Galactic center (uncapitalized) should redirect there. --IanOsgood (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. I changed that redirect target which you mentioned. __meco (talk) 18:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither word is a proper noun so neither needs an initial capital. You don't write about Space.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.132.135 (talk) 09:07, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Center with capital "C" 

message: http://www.astro.columbia.edu/~herrnstein/NH3/
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemmiwinks2 (talk • contribs) 05:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  nice reference website 

message: I removed this text:
"even if that were true [that there is no density cusp] for the Milky Way's Galactic Center, realistic models of how stars distribute around massive black holes have shown that regrowth of the cusp would take place in a time shorter than the Hubble time"
In other words: we should believe someone's theoretical models, rather than the observations. The observations do not show a cusp, and it is silly to say that "the cusp must be there because my models predict it"!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.22.214.242 (talk) 15:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Stellar cusp

message: :The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.  
I am proposing that Great Annihilator be merged into Galactic Center, as currently the GA article is one sentence long (and I can't see it getting much larger based on the research I've found). In my opinion it doesn't need a page to itself unless a major discovery happens. Primefac (talk) 16:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggest a redirect since the term does occur and people are going to come looking for it, but we shouldn't encourage such foolish names.  Consider redirecting to Sagittarius A*  Lithopsian (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If/when the sentence gets added here, I was going to have GA redirect here. The Great Attractor is not Sagittarius A*, though, so it shouldn't get redir'd there. Primefac (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

text: Sorry, but I disagree. A SIMBAD search for the object shows that many different professional studies have been done on it, and it thus meets clause #3 of WP:NASTRO, and should have a standalone article. There's plenty to write about it. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: i agree with the previous. "great annihilator" is not a nickname for the galactic center but the moniker of a bright, pointlike xray source near the galactic center. it is a separate astronomical object. see http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/520/1/316/pdf/39366.web.pdf Macevoy (talk)   — Preceding undated comment added 06:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Even so, until the Great Annihilator article produces more information, a separate article with just a single sentence is not justifiable.  Until more information is produced, then the article can split on its own independently. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 06:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP:STUB 'a "definition" may be enough to qualify an article as a stub'. The reasons allowing merging or deletion of stubs given there do not apply: the subject is notable, and Google Scholar yields 200 hits, so there appears to enough verifiable information. Paradoctor (talk) 09:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

text:  Added some sources to the article. If no further arguments come forward, I'll consider this propsal as rejected. Paradoctor (talk) 10:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger Proposal (2014) [[Great Annihilator]] -> [[Galactic Center]] 

message: The first paragraph mentions "1 Giant Dark Matter Star with 82 Huge Dark Matter Satellites" with no citations at all. Never even heard of anyone proposing such a weird setup. This sounds like another reference to Star Trek or perhaps Captain Future phantasmagoria. Recommending deletion. There is a T101 in your kitchen (talk) 15:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure how I missed seeing that addition, but I've reverted until proper refs can be obtained. Thanks for the heads up . Primefac (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Giant Dark Matter Star

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Galactic Center. 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/20070621072120/http://www.mpe.mpg.de/SPIFFI/preprints/first_result_an1.pdf to http://www.mpe.mpg.de/SPIFFI/preprints/first_result_an1.pdf
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) 08:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Galactic Center. 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/20070706183425/http://www.icpress.co.uk/physics/p394.html to http://www.icpress.co.uk/physics/p394.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20020808061115/http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/boom_times_020610-1.html to http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/boom_times_020610-1.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) 06:00, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Galactic Center. 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/20071031014713/http://www.einstein-online.info/en/spotlights/milkyway_bh/index.html to http://www.einstein-online.info/en/spotlights/milkyway_bh/index.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) 11:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: I think it would be good to add info from this study to the article (it would probably need a new section). It's currently featured briefly in 2021 in science like so:
Astrophysicists report the discovery of unexplained blockage of high-energy cosmic rays entering the Galactic center, such as a strong magnetic field.
 Prototyperspective (talk) 23:42, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please update with: "A GeV-TeV particle component and the barrier of cosmic-ray sea in the Central Molecular Zone" 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: Not Moved per MOS:CELESTIALBODIES (non-admin closure) >>> Extorc.talk 06:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Galactic Center →  – Looking at scholarly sources, the usage is split (outside of the titles of papers) between "Galactic Center" and "Galactic center" (see this arxiv search, for example). Since there does not seem to be a consensus that the word "center" is part of the proper name, we should default to WP:NCCAPS and not capitalize subsequent words in the title. --Ahecht (TALKPAGE) 14:51, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This would be per MOS:CELESTIALBODIES, similar to Solar System although the article seems confused if its a point in space or a larger defined area. So regardless of source use, Wikipedia guidelines may override that per Sun, Moon, Earth, etc. Although either a point in space or a massive defined area, the Galactic Center as a concept may be called a celestial body as described, thus it seems to fit the guideline. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:19, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: p.s. Yikes, check out where Galactic lands (was checking if it was, as you implied, another name for the Milky Way, and it seems to be when uppercased. The word probably should be a redirect to the disamb. page and not the band). Randy Kryn (talk) 03:47, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 14 June 2022 

message: FWIW - (For being aware only of newly published relevant studies - not necessarily to incorporate into the main article) - On 8 July 2022, astronomers reported the discovery of massive amounts of prebiotic molecules, including for RNA, in the galactic center of the Milky Way Galaxy. - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loads of prebiotic molecules found in Milky Way?)