Talk:Carina Nebula

message: The nebula is not called the Eta Carinae nebula, it is the Carina Nebula or the Great Nebula in Carina.  The Eta Carinae nebula is also known as the Homonculus and is the much smaller nebula surrounding the star. --Keflavich 01:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Carina Nebula is not just the more accurate name, it's the most common name. A Google image search for "Carina Nebula" brings photographs of this larger nebula, and a search for "Eta Carinae" brings up images of the star itself and the homunculus. For these reasons I am submitting this article to requested moves for review. ▫ Urbane Legend chinwag 15:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Keflavich is 110% correct, and the other statements here are silly and irrelevant. It is called the Eta Carinae Nebula, because when it was observed in the 18th Century, the star of Eta Carinae predominated the nebula because of its brightness, in fact, making the nebulae difficult to see. Most observers know it as the Eta Carina Nebulae, and it distinguishes it from several other known Carina Nebulae. Whoever requested this move, should be censured because it is not known as this by southern observers. (Note: There are moves afoot to eliminate this naming debacles, like this one, via the IAU.) Arianewiki1 (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: After five and a half years, if you wanted to make this point you'd have been better starting a new thread. But since you are here maybe you can explainhow someone can be "110% correct", particularly as their statement "The nebula is not called the Eta Carinae nebula, it is the Carina Nebula" is diametrically opposed to your own contention. And which exactly are all the other statements which "are silly or irelevant"? Chris H, who agrees with you, or Urbane Legend, who agrees with Keflavitch? Moonraker12 (talk) 09:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Proper name

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
* Support, IIRC the Eta Carinae Nebula is a component of the Great Nebula in Carina. 132.205.99.122 19:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: The article says "The diameter of the Keyhole structure is approximately 7 light years." But diameters are generally used for round things, and the Keyhole isn't round, as shown here . Is it 7 light years in length? We need a better word for its size than diameter. Gary (talk) 21:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In astronomy, I've noticed that a diameter is sometimes used for the minimum enclosing circle of an object or feature. Thus, for example, all of the named features on the Moon have a diameter; including irregular formations such as mountain ranges or rilles.—RJH (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that diameter would typically imply a spherical object which could cause some confusion here. Perhaps some clarification is needed on where how this diameter was determined and what it refers to (e.g. largest, smallest, or average diameter). Also, a citation should be added for this value. CayenneEMatt (talk) 01:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keyhole nebula 

message: http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2009/25/image/e/ Kaldari (talk) 20:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New image from NASA 

message: In older usage (see Burnham, e.g.,) the name "Keyhole Nebula" applies to all of NGC 3372 -- i.e., this is "the nebula that contains the Keyhole".  Most modern sources I've seen use "Keyhole Nebula" just for the Keyhole itself.  We probably ought to point out this divergence of names in the section on the Keyhole Nebula.
Also, many webpages (e.g. APOD 9 June 2011) mistakenly give the Keyhole the identifier NGC 3324.  Our article repeats this, using APOD as a reference.  But the catalogue uses the number 3324 for an emission/reflection nebula to the NW of the main Carina Nebula (roughly at epoch 2000.0 coords 10h 37m 20s, −58d 38m), as reflected by Simbad, the NGC Project website, and the Night Sky Observer's Guide (Kepple et al.).  So far as I know, the Keyhole itself does not have its own NGC number.  Is there another identifier for it?
-- Elphion (talk) 20:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hearing no objection, I've made changes along these lines. -- Elphion (talk) 01:55, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Keyhole 

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:Carina Nebula.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on September 19, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-09-19. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Carina Nebula.jpg]] to appear as POTD 

message: I can't make head nor tail of the second sentence.  I don't even know what it is *trying* to say, let alone what it actually says.  Anybody?  Lithopsian (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't make any sense of it either, and have removed it. Whatever it was trying to say, it was completely unsalvageable in its current form. StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, for such an important article, the prose and content here is, well, rather terrible. I may try to do some expanding later, if time allows. StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the whole article is poorly worded, but I mostly leave nebulae for someone else.  It actually looks pretty good compared to Eta Carinae which I'd been looking at.  I'm still stuck there and just can't see how to fix it with anything short of a rewrite.  Lithopsian (talk) 11:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed that Eta Car is certainly a huge mess currently as well. Unfortunately, it seems that the actually important astronomical object articles here don't get any attention compared to those unimportant minor planet and exoplanet articles, and I'm already swamped on-wiki. I'll try to get around to Eta Carinae sometime though. StringTheory11 (t • c) 20:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening paragraph 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Carina 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/20090215225758/http://eso.org:80/public/outreach/press-rel/pr-2009/pr-05-09.html to http://www.eso.org/public/outreach/press-rel/pr-2009/pr-05-09.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Carina Nebula's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "grafener":
From List of most massive stars: 
From WR 22: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 19:03, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Carina Nebula]] 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Carina Nebula's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "gosss":
From HD 93129: 
From NGC 6193: 
From WR 25: 
Reference named "vazquez":
From NGC 6193: 
From HD 93129: 
Reference named "smith2006":
From Eta Carinae: 
From Homunculus Nebula: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Carina Nebula]] 

message: The following two statements in the article seem contradictory in their implications of the size and age of the Homunculus Nebula:
"...the actual linear distance of that point from the central star, which defines the distance. Values obtained using this method are around 2.3 kiloparsecs (7,500 ly)". By implication, the nebula is significantly older than 7,500 years.
"It is believed to have been ejected in an enormous outburst in 1841". By implication, the radius of the nebula well below 176 light years.
Would anyone be able to clarify this seeming contradiction?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralph Purtcher (talk • contribs) 08:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the nebula is about 7500 ly away, the explosion must have occurred over 7500 years ago; but it was observed on Earth in 1841, so the initial light from the explosion reached us only 176 years ago.  Thus from the explosion to the state we see it in now is only a span of 176 years, limiting the size of the nebula as we see it now.  (I agree that the text is not as clear as it might be.) -- Elphion (talk) 14:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

text: I've reworded the paragraph I think you're having trouble with. Hopefully it is clearer and addresses any confusion. The largest distance of the outer shell of the bipolar nebula from the central object is 22,000 AU, about a tenth of a parsec. I think I'll add that too, good information. Lithopsian (talk) 15:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Seeming contraditions in section on Homunculus

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:Carina Nebula by ESO.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on September 19, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-09-19. 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) 01:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Carina Nebula by ESO.jpg]] to appear as POTD soon