Talk:Galaxy

message: The section here on types and morphology is almost four pages; it links Galaxy morphological classification as the main page but it is two-ish.
It seems to me that the Galaxy morphological classification is about the classification systems rather than their results? Johnjbarton (talk) 17:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by "their results"? - Parejkoj (talk) 17:54, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean that the Galaxy article has 4 pages to describe different kinds of galaxies, while the "main" it points to is about systems.  So the section "Types and morphology" is not a summary of Galaxy morphological classification as implied by "main" tag.  Is that clearer? Johnjbarton (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

text: Tweaked accordingly. XOR'easter (talk) 16:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:   Galaxy morphological classification 

message: The section on "Isophotal diameter" had some citation needed tags, but the more I read to look for references, the less I liked the content in the section. Some of it was misleading and I deleted it.
I will delete two more paragraphs. One is on Redman's 1937 paper (should have cited his 1938 correction) but only cited the primary source and incorrectly (AFAICT) credited Redman with defining a standard. Instead the paper compares two methods of measure diameters of things-not-yet-called-galaxies, one of which is the isophotal comparison method. This is a notable historic paper for isophotal techniques, but needs a secondary reference and not a whole paragraph in Galaxy.
Similarly there is paragraph on Holmberg that is almost certainly not correct in that his method differs from modern technique.  But the reason to delete here is not incorrectness but rather too much detail for an article on Galaxy. We don't need a partial history of isophotal techniques here. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isophotal diameter 

message: The intro has a lot of interesting material about the numbers of stars and galaxies that does not appear in the article. Conversely parts of the article do not appear in the intro. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; the lead needs a rewrite. It doesn't even cover the Observation history, Variants, or the Formation and Evolution sections. There should probably be up to a paragraph for each of the major sections. Praemonitus (talk) 18:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro not a summary. 

message: This newly discovered galaxy formed before EGS-zs8-1: 
GLASS-z12 Jcgam (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be the earliest observed, not necessarily the oldest. 02:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've removed the previous entries for EGS-zs8-1. Frankly, I don't think this article should be the target of such statements; it's meant to cover galaxies in general terms, not specific record holders. Praemonitus (talk) 16:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the cleanup: that whole "early universe" section could use a lot of trimming. - Parejkoj (talk) 17:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  GLASS-z12 is now the oldest galaxy discovered 

message: I reverted a change that included a link to a May 2024 newspaper article entitled "We've Just Seen The First Galaxies in The Universe Being Born". This content is summary of a news article about primary publication. It's not encyclopedic. The only information in the content is the date really. Johnjbarton (talk) 14:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: (and others) - Thank You about your comments about my recent edit (and your related rv) about some recent publications - yes - *entirely* agree - no probem whatsoever - Thanks again for all - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  We've Just Seen The First Galaxies in The Universe Being Born 

message: if galaxy is flat than how thick is it ? 204.174.232.2 (talk) 01:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the article. If you search for "thick", there it is. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  how can be galaxy is flat like a disc? 

message: @Sgubaldo In my opinion, the first two paragraphs of the section "Early galaxy formation" is news, not encyclopedia content. The section should summarize reliable reviews on "Early galaxy formation" not naturally unreliable news stories from last month.  We just discussed this issue above in the topic "We've Just Seen the First Galaxies..." Johnjbarton (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @User:Johnjbarton This is the state it was in when I first came across it, I just updated it. I'm happy for it to be changed to more of an overview of the top-down/bottom-up processes talked about in the last two paragraphs. Sgubaldo (talk) 14:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok thanks. I started looking into the refs and mostly they are good. I'll resummarize them to focus on the science and challenges rather than dates. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early galaxy formation