Talk:List of globular clusters

message: The URL of Marco Castellani's database (http://venus.mporzio.astro.it/~marco/gc/ at the Rome Astronomical Observatory) gives a 404.  I found his website http://mcastel.weebly.com/ which contained http://gclusters.altervista.org/ .
I hope this is the "official" one. --Ralf Muschall (talk) 18:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Database has moved 

message: Where is NGC 5466?
89.142.184.35 (talk) 10:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: In the list. - Rod57 (talk) 15:02, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  NGC5466 - done 

message: This table may be useful for building our list http://physwww.physics.mcmaster.ca/~harris/mwgc.dat
:It can also be accessed through a query interface http://gclusters.altervista.org/index.php
-- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 11:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  McMaster U list 

message: Substituted at 22:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: I searched the internet for other lists of globular clusters and updated this table with the median values from all these sources.  The only Milky Way clusters that were not found in any of these sources were Laevens 1 and Segue 3. In the Local Group list, only the Sag DEG clusters were included in these sources.  There are a few more clusters that were included in the sources but not in this table.  I will add them soon.  --Lasunncty (talk) 02:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you list the sources you used (here, and cite near the table?) ? Did you calculate the medians ? Are there no sources that provide medians and range estimates ? Sources that give references would be preferred ? Later distance estimates might be more accurate ? - Rod57 (talk) 15:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The references that are currently listed in the article are the ones I used.  (Any clusters added since 2017 have not been referenced.)  Yes, I took the medians, as the sources did not always agree with each other, and did not provide uncertainties.  I just updated a couple ref links that were outdated, but I imagine that there are probably new sources that could be used as well.  --Lasunncty (talk) 05:02, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent updates - 2017 

message: The Local Group list is missing: NGC 265,
Julianstout (talk) 22:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I can find, NGC 265 is an open cluster, not a globular. Do you have a reference that says otherwise?  --Lasunncty (talk) 09:05, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing a Local Group Cluster 

message: A very recent edition of the star atlas Uranometria 2000 Volume 2 lists all of these NGC objects as globular clusters associated with the SMC. I do believe that Uranometria certainly qualifies as a "reliable source"; but, as this is an atlas, how would one link to a reference to it?
NGCs: 152, 265, 269, 339, 361, 376, 411, 416, 419, 458. Not in Uranometria, there are also at least 2 Cron clusters that are classified as SMC globulars, but I dont have reliable Cron numbers for them. Users of SIMBAD more skilled than I should be able to confirm the Cron numbers.
Similarly, Uranometria lists these NGC objects as LMC globulars.
NGCs: 1644, 1651, 1652, 1751, 1754, 1783, 1786, 1795, 1786, 1806, 1835, 1846, 1868, 1896, 1917, 1953, 1978, 1987, 2019, 2108, 2121, 2133, 2154, 2161, 2162, 2173, 2190, 2209, 2210, 2213, 2231, 2241, 2249.
I also have a random notation of an LW79, which google informs me is indeed an LMC globular.
Finally, there has been some discussion that the "globular clusters" associated with the SMC and LMC are not "true" globular clusters in the sense that Milky Way ones are, but I don't have any specific reliable source.  They therefore assert that they are open clusters. As a result, some of the NGC clusters that I have listed above are listed in Wikipedia as open rather than globular. I have no idea how this issue should be resolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:e422:3c01:108f:f273:d3a:de7f (talk) 11:24, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lots more SMC & LMC globulars 

message: Google images show quite clearly that it is a globular cluster; and at that size, it cant be anything other than a Milky Way one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:e422:3c01:3c16:1da9:b9e8:a08e (talk) 11:33, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  IC1257 not listed 

message: Ref 53 on the page points (indirectly) to https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.5750.pdf where Muñoz et al. explicitly state "This new satellite is separate from Ursa Minor by ∼ 30 kpc and 110 kms−1 suggesting the cluster is not obviously associated with the dSph, despite the very close angular separation."
Xilman (talk) 20:17, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muñoz 1 not a GC associated with the UMi Dwarf?