| Revision as of 21:17, 15 November 2006 editDr. Submillimeter (talk | contribs)13,460 edits →Andromeda Galaxy classification?: Clarification?← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 00:05, 1 January 2025 edit undoGnomingstuff (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers44,903 edits rv 2023 test eidt | ||
| (35 intermediate revisions by 22 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{ |
{{talkheader}} | ||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1= | |||
| {{WikiProject Astronomy|importance=high}} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{summary in|Galaxy}} | |||
| {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis | |||
| | age=2160 | |||
| | archiveprefix=Talk:Galaxy morphological classification/Archive | |||
| | numberstart=1 | |||
| | minkeepthreads=4 | |||
| | minarchthreads=1 | |||
| | format= %%i | |||
| }} | |||
| ==Proposed merge from Disc galaxy== | |||
| == "S" means lenticular ... == | |||
| The article ] 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: ]. Since Misplaced Pages is ], I think there's a clear case to merge into this article. ] (]) 21:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose''', ] should be merged into ] rather than merged into ] . ] talks about the types of classifications of Galaxies, not the actual types. ] and ], one talks about the type of galaxy and the other talks about it as a feature. Most disk galaxies are actually spirals and are usually never just plain Disk Galaxies making it somewhat redundant? ] (]) 00:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::] 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 ]. Is "disc" just an ad-hoc classification? There's no sources for "Disc galaxy". ] (]) 20:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC) | |||
| {{outdent|:::}} I removed the merger hatnote from August 2015 and . There is no agreement or initiative to merge ] (type) with ] (component) or with ] (this aricle). Instead I'll post it on ] (link to post to be followed) to ask a wider audience, OK? <em>] <small>]</small></em> 10:51, 13 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == External links modified == | |||
| 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) | |||
| Hello fellow Wikipedians, | |||
| :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) | |||
| I have just modified one external link on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes: | |||
| *Added archive https://archive.is/20121205083205/http://sings.stsci.edu/Publications/sings_poster.html to http://sings.stsci.edu/Publications/sings_poster.html | |||
| When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. | |||
| {{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}} | |||
| Sites should be merged. Same exact topic, and many users would benefit from consolidation of info. for research purposes.----sjenkins | |||
| Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 07:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == Andromeda Galaxy classification? == | |||
| == Van Den Bergh Luminosity Class == | |||
| 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 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? ] (]) 00:43, 19 December 2021 (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. ] 21:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
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. |
|
| 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: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
| 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)
- Oppose, Disc galaxy should be merged into Disc (galaxy) rather than merged into Galaxy morphological classification (As seen here). Galaxy morphological classification talks about the types of classifications of Galaxies, not the actual types. Disc galaxy and Disc (galaxy), one talks about the type of galaxy and the other talks about it as a feature. Most disk galaxies are actually spirals and are usually never just plain Disk Galaxies making it somewhat redundant? Davidbuddy9 (talk) 00:30, 31 October 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:
- Added archive https://archive.is/20121205083205/http://sings.stsci.edu/Publications/sings_poster.html to http://sings.stsci.edu/Publications/sings_poster.html
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: