Talk:Canis Major Overdensity

message: Very on the ball! User:Wetman
I got some information for the table at 
--BrendanRyan 14:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: The opening mentions that it's a Dwarf galaxy, but that article says a dwarf galaxy consists of around 10 million stars (compared to the Milky Way which has 200-400 million), whereas this article states Canis Major may contain 1 billion (10 million × 100) stars, which is considerably larger than the Milky Way itself, let alone a "dwarf" galaxy. — Vystrix Nexoth 08:13, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
: The problem is that the Dwarf galaxy page needs some serious cleanup and contains factual errors.  The Milky Way has 200-400 billion stars, not million, and there are globular clusters that contain more than 10 million stars; I'm not sure, but I imagine a dwarf galaxy could range up to 10 billion stars. Neurophyre 18:19, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dwarf galaxy? 

message: Some additional information on this galaxy - especially on the Monoceros Ring, briefly referred to in this article - would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Brasswatchman July 31, 2005. 11:23 AM EST.
Canis Major Dwarf galaxy is a very small galaxy on the verge of becoming part of the milky way itself.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.128.210.33 (talk) 00:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Additional Information

message: The table has the line Constellation 	 and I can't see it when editing the article.--BrendanRyan 08:36, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Where's that line?

message: A major recent paper on the outer galaxy and especially on the Canis Major region rejects the idea that there is a dwarf galaxy in this direction. Instead the "overdensity" of stars in this region is caused by the extension of the Orion Spur in this direction. See:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...672..930V
I suggest that this article be deleted.
Kevin Jardine
Galaxy Map
http://galaxymap.org
80.61.70.22 (talk) 16:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Specific rejection of there being a dwarf galaxy, is not given in the text of the abstract linked to... so will need someone else who has access to the full article to comment further (but generally notable secondary sources trump single primary sources - wikipedia being about knowledge, which may be flawed, rather than scientific truth - ie not WP:SPOV). Are there any other refs for this view being more widely accepted ? David Ruben  Talk  17:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: A quick search of the recent scientific literature on the Canis Major "overdensity" shows at least 8 scientific papers concluding that this phenomenon is not a dwarf galaxy or at least is more consistent with other explanations. I'm sure that a more thorough search would find more. I suggest that this article should either be deleted or at very least needs to be thoroughly rewritten to explain that a dwarf galaxy is simply one of several possible explanations for the overdensity.
See:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009AJ....137.4412M
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.390L..54P
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ASPC..393..251L
http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.2084
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A%26A...472L..47L
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.368L..77M
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A%26A...451..515M
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...672..930V
Kevin Jardine
Galaxy Map
http://galaxymap.org
86.93.21.227 (talk) 14:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still dubious 

message: I think at this point there is enough volume of scientific studies questioning the galaxy status of Canis Major to at least warrant its own section. Maybe: Galaxy status or Galaxy vs overdensity debate or something along that line. Thoughts? Gaba p (talk) 22:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If nobody opposes this, I'll add said section in a couple of days. Gaba p (talk) 13:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a galaxy 

message: The lead says that it is a hypothetical galaxy and yet it has also been discovered. Last I checked you can't be a theory and a fact at the same time. If the galaxy exists shouldn't "hypothetical" be removed? Or is it only a hypothetical dwarf galaxy, meaning it's status is unknown? If so would it not read better as "is a dense region of stars, potentially a dwarf galaxy..." or something like that? Coinmanj (talk) 04:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I re-wrote the Discovery section a bit. Is it clearer now? Gaba p (talk) 10:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Much, thanks. Coinmanj (talk) 22:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome. Gaba p (talk) 00:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hypothetical? 

message: I can't find "PGC 5065047" listed in any astronomical catalogs, including PGC/LEDA .  What is the citation for this PGC number?  Nicole Sharp (talk) 06:06, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  PGC 5065047