Misplaced Pages

Talk:Galaxy morphological classification: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:43, 19 December 2021 editPraemonitus (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users65,680 edits →Van Den Bergh Luminosity Class: new section← Previous edit Latest revision as of 00:05, 1 January 2025 edit undoGnomingstuff (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers44,832 edits rv 2023 test eidt 
(7 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talkheader}} {{talkheader}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1=
{{Vital article|level=4|topic=Science|class=C|subpage=Physics}}
{{WPAstronomy|class=C|importance=high}} {{WikiProject Astronomy|importance=high}}
}}
{{summary in|Galaxy}} {{summary in|Galaxy}}
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis

| age=2160

| archiveprefix=Talk:Galaxy morphological classification/Archive
== "S" means lenticular ... ==
| numberstart=1

| minkeepthreads=4
I'm not really an expert on the subject, but I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that "S" is short for 'spiral', not 'lenticular'. - ]: <sup>]</sup> 20:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
| minarchthreads=1

| format= %%i
:That's true, S does mean Spiral. However E9, S0, SA0, SB0, SAB0 mean "lenticular". Lenticulars are spirals without arms, more or less. ] 18:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
}}



Sites should be merged. Same exact topic, and many users would benefit from consolidation of info. for research purposes.----sjenkins

== Andromeda Galaxy classification? ==

Quote from this article: ''"The Milky Way Galaxy is now believed to be an SBb galaxy; previously, it was thought to be '''Sb like its giant companion, the Andromeda Galaxy'''." '' I'm not an astronomer... but the ] is described as a ] in its Misplaced Pages article so wouldn't that make the Andromeda Galaxy an SBb and not an Sb? ] 07:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

:The Andromeda Galaxy is apparently a complicated case. The galaxy contains a bar that was only identified recently (in an article currently only in preprint form), but most people would think that it is unbarred. References to it in this article should possibly be removed. GeorgeJBendo 21:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

== Morphology not just for galaxies ==

The term morphology in astronomy is used to describe the shape of any object, though it's usually used for a point source surrounded by extended emission. It is particularly important in the description of planetary and protoplanetary nebulae and dust ejections around other stars like Eta Carinae. Anyone have any idea where to get refs for this, though? --] 21:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

:While morphology may be relevant in other parts of astronomy, this is an article about galaxy morphology. I suggest creating another article about morphology in other objects and linking to it from this page in the "See also" section.

:(I also did not understand the comment about how morphology is usually applied to point sources with extended emission. I usually see the term "morphology" applied to galaxies, but I may be biased because I am an extragalactic astronomer.) ] 07:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

== Wholesale rewrite ==

As soon as I am finished with the revision of the ], I would like to revise this article. Among other things, I would like to:
*Streamline the discussion on the Hubble classification system.
*De-emphasize the division between barred and unbarred spiral galaxies in the section on the Hubble classification system. Except for the bar, the two types of galaxies are actually very similar.
*Greatly expand the section on the de Vaucouleurs classification system.
*Add images of galaxies to illustrate the vaious morphologies.
*Add inline citations.
Does anyone have any comments before I start on this? ] 15:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

:I think the Hubble sequence deserves it's own page since it's the most well-known morphological scheme. The de Vaucouleurs system can be included under that or on a separate page. It would be nice to see a paragraph on the pros and cons of the Hubble scheme (I have some notes on that but I'll wait until you've completed the rewrite and maybe add them in if needed). Apart from that I agree that it needs trimming down a bit, especially the detailed stuff about galaxy properties which belongs elsewhere. ] 23:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

::Having separate pages for each scheme would be appropriate, but general overviews here would still be appropriate. (What are the pros and cons of the Hubble scheme? Is this something to do with perspective effects?) ] 08:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

:::I was thinking firstly of the fact that it relies on subjective judgements of observers (rather than a quantitative criterion such as spectral lines or concentration-asymmetry indices). There have been studies that show an average scatter of ~1 Hubble type between different observers' classifications of the same set of galaxies. Also the difficulty of reliably classifying edge-on, faint or distant galaxies (both because of the small number of pixels in an image of a distant galaxy and the fact that high-redshift galaxies don;t appear to follow the same Hubble sequence). But on the plus side, Hubble type correlates well with many physical paramters (). I was only thinking of a single short paragraph on this (and the same for the other schemes). ] 14:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

::::Actually, I think a longer discussion would be warranted, and it would be applicable to virtually any morphological classification scheme (Hubble, de Vaucouleurs, etc.). I also wanted to use a lot of the material from Roberts & Haynes (and the Kennicutt ARA&A article) in this article. ] 17:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::Since you seem to be still busy with other things, and I have time on my hands, I'm going to take a stab at this. I intend to make a separate page for the Hubble sequence, because I think it merits it. ] 12:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

:::::OK, I've done that. I (almost) completely re-wrote the Hubble sequence stuff and moved it to ], with a summary on this page. If anyone objects strongly to that then we can move it back to this page. I also added a few references and images for the different types. I removed the tables of galaxy properties because I mostly don't think they're relevant, but I left them as comments on this page so they can easily be re-added without undoing the rest of the changes.

:::::Comments? Suggestions?

:::::] 15:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

== Possible Mislabel of Galaxies ==
A minor note: the galaxy types given for the elliptical galaxy examples differ quite drastically from those given by the respective individual galaxy articles. For example, in this article, M49 is labeled as an E4 galaxy, but in the M49 article, the classification is given as E2/S0. ]

:This page is poorly referenced compared to the articles on individual galaxies. I hope to fix it once I take care of a few other things on Misplaced Pages. ] 08:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

== Lenticular classification arm ==

According to some new research there might be a realignment of the tuning fork, adding a third arm for lenticulars... ] (]) 07:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


==Proposed merge from Disc galaxy== ==Proposed merge from Disc galaxy==

Latest revision as of 00:05, 1 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Galaxy morphological classification article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconAstronomy High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Misplaced Pages.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
A summary of this article appears in Galaxy.


Proposed merge from Disc galaxy

The article Disc galaxy is just a one sentence definition that I think gets better context in this general article about galaxy classification. I don't see how Disc galaxy could be expanded beyond a definition without duplicating other related articles; we already have an article for the disc component of the galaxy: Disc (galaxy). Since Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary, I think there's a clear case to merge into this article. Forbes72 (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion on Disc galaxy seemed to indicate consensus was against merging "Disc (galaxy)" and "Disc galaxy". The editors there agreed that "disc" was a morphological classification of some type, as opposed to a feature.(but it's unclear to me which system of classification is being referred to) Disc as morphological type also shows up in the Galaxy template. Is "disc" just an ad-hoc classification? There's no sources for "Disc galaxy". Forbes72 (talk) 20:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I removed the merger hatnote from August 2015 here and here. There is no agreement or initiative to merge Disc galaxy (type) with Disc (galaxy) (component) or with Galaxy morphological classification (this aricle). Instead I'll post it on WT:AST (link to post to be followed) to ask a wider audience, OK? Rfassbind – talk 10:51, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Galaxy morphological classification. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Van Den Bergh Luminosity Class

The article doesn't mention the Van Den Bergh luminosity class and I don't see it mentioned elsewhere on Misplaced Pages. Could that be covered? Praemonitus (talk) 00:43, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Categories: