Talk:List of nearest galaxies

message: I just read an article notes that several new dwarfs have been found in the southern hemisphere in the vicinity of the LMC:  http://www.astronomy.com/news/2015/03/new-dwarf-galaxies-discovered-in-orbit-around-the-milky-way 
And here is another article which reports that even more galaxies have been found on the other side of the milky way: http://www.astronomy.com/news/2016/02/scientists-discover-hidden-galaxies-behind-the-milky-way
If someone has the time to go to the original papers and get the data, then this list will need updating.  I guess that I'll do it if i get some time. 
 00:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  New objects to take into account 

message: What does it mean that a galaxy is a satellite of another? Rmhermen 15:05, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)
:it orbits it like a satellite Alexander110 (talk) 05:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Satellites?

message: * OPPOSE a list is useful by itself, and would clutter the Local Group article. And not everything on the list need be a Local Group member132.205.45.110 22:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently this list include only name, distance, and notes. Diameter and type should also be included, maybe other information too. In that case, there's no reason for merge anymore.--Jyril 08:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge to Local Group

message: I'm going to use distances from SEDS at  instead of the unsourced ones here unless an explanation or source is available in the individual article. I will preserve old values in comments; they can be reinstated if better information is found. Ardric47 02:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not use data from SEDS. With a few exceptions, SEDS does not reference its sources of information.  Their data appear to be highly inaccurate and misleading. George J. Bendo 17:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distances 

message: i recently read in this New Scientist article that the magellanic clouds may not be satellites, because they are moving too quickly. perhaps the comments in the list should reflect this? Mlm42 09:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After years of research, Karachentsev (2005) indicated that the LMC and SMC are gravitationally bound.  The results in the New Scientist article are newer, but the reference is not a peer-reviewd journal aritcle.  A corresponding peer-reviewed journal article should be found for this information.  Moreover, even if this has been published, it should still be confirmed.  From my experience, some of these assessments about the dynamics of objects near the Milky Way can be quite tricky.  Ultimately, the discussion would be so lengthy that it could take up too much space.  (Writing Wikipedia articles by press release generally does not work well.)  Dr. Submillimeter 09:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: but shouldn't the articles somehow reflect the fact that it isn't proven that they are satellite galaxies? if the assessments of the dynamics are tricky, that tells me that claims regarding when things are or aren't gravitationally bound are probably more conjecture-with-some-evidence than generally-accepted-fact.. i don't know much about it, but i would prefer not to have the wool pulled over my eyes! :) Mlm42 15:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is beyond the scope of this list.  I suggest discussing the topic at Large Magellanic Cloud and Small Magellanic Cloud.  Remove the reference to the LMC and SMC as "satellite galaxies" if it really bothers you (although they probably are satellite galaxies).  Dr. Submillimeter 07:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  LMC and SMC not satellites? 

message: Would it not be correct that the Milky Way Galaxy is a satellite of the Milky Way? If yes then I suggest that said information is added to the notes like all the other Milky Way dwarfs. FrunkSpace (talk) 10:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Milky Way = Milky Way Galaxy = our galaxy. The same thing cannot be the satellite itself. — Chesnok (talk) 19:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Milky Way Galaxy 

message: The result was keep separate from Milky Way's satellite galaxies. -- Debate 木 09:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  mergefrom [[Milky Way's satellite galaxies]] 

message: I stopped just before 3.6 Mpc as Karachentsev 2004 lists about a dozen at this distance and many more between 4-5Mpc. 3.6 mpc takes in the nearer members of nearby groups - a selection from the sculptor, M81 group, M94 group, Centaurus A and Maffei groups. I have used the distance of NGC 4945 as the line in the sand. If we made the cut off nearer than this, the list would become dominated by local group members - and so less interesting in my opinion (and duplicating the list at Local group. It could be further out than this but the length would increase very rapidly.. of course if someone wants to do the work then go right ahead...alexander110 03:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Rationale for list end

message: The article claims that Leo A (Leo III, DDO 69) is a satellite of the Milkyway. It also claims that Leo A (Leo III, DDO 69) is further away than most Andromeda and most of it's satellite galaxies. This data is incongruous. No, I'm not making the claim that Leo A would be a satellite of Andromeda, it's obviously not in even in the vicinity of Andromeda. Andromeda is in the Andromeda constellation hence it's name. Leo A is likewise in the Leo constellation. But it still doesn't make much sense that Milkyway can have a satellite further out than the nearest non-satellite galaxy. That would be like saying that the sun has a red dwarf companion that's further out than the nearest main sequence star.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.252.140.6 (talk) 13:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incongruous data 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Ursa Minor Dwarf.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: Someone might be confused by Mly linking to Light year article and not realize that it means million light years.. I thing that this should be made more clear.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.183.120.3 (talk) 10:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mly 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of nearest galaxies. 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/20080527020725/http://astro.u-strasbg.fr/images_ri/canm-e.html to http://astro.u-strasbg.fr/images_ri/canm-e.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) 11:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Donatiello I seems to be there now.. alexander110 10:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Paper below suggests GALFA-dw4 may have a distance of 2.98±0.37 mpc but if it does it is moving a very odd velocity:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1905.11416.pdf
May be rather futher away so I suggest we wait this one out for now. Need to wait for the paper to get through peer review.©Geni (talk) 02:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: GALFA-DW4

message: The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:
*  (discussion)
*  (discussion)
*  (discussion)
*  (discussion)
*  (discussion)
*  (discussion)
*  (discussion)
Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:22, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:25, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion