Talk:Carina Nebula

Proper name
The nebula is not called the Eta Carinae nebula, it is the Carina Nebula or the Great Nebula in Carina. The Eta Carinae nebula is also known as the Homonculus and is the much smaller nebula surrounding the star. --Keflavich 01:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Simbad disagrees, it say that "Eta Carinae Nebula" is the common name. And when it comes to Astronomical Objects, Simbad and Ned are gods. Chris H 16:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * While it's amusing that you consider NED and Simbad gods of naming conventions (heck, why not?), I don't get those same results. A search for the "Eta Carinae Nebula" or the "Eta Carina Nebula" turns up nothing.  Of course, under NGC 3772, the names listed include Eta Car Nebula, but not Eta Carinae Nebula (see ).  One of the other names listed, the Keyhole Nebula, is only a part of the Carina nebula.  I think the wikipedia name should be "Carina Nebula" for a few reasons:
 * 1. avoids confusion with the Homonculus and Little Homonculus, which are more directly associated with Eta Car
 * 2. the name on the picture from HST/Smith et al. is the Carina Nebula
 * 3. APOD refers to it as Carina Nebula and even links to it here as Carina Nebula. APOD is a higher source than SIMBAD!  (the latter is purely subjective and probably not true)
 * 4. I think most astronomers refer to it as the carina nebula, but I could be biased by talking only to those who do --Keflavich 00:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, Keflavitch. This is more commonly known as the Carina nebula; I was very surprised at the redirect. The title Eta Carinae Nebula would be more suited to the ejections of the star Eta Carinae itself, aka the Homonculus. The most obvious reason for this is that the Carina nebula is not composed of matter coming from Eta Carinae, and the name therefore comes from the fact that it is a large nebula in the constellation Carina. Eta Carinae is a feature of the Carina nebula.
 * Carina Nebula is not just the more accurate name, it's the most common name. A Google image search for "Carina Nebula" brings photographs of this larger nebula, and a search for "Eta Carinae" brings up images of the star itself and the homunculus. For these reasons I am submitting this article to requested moves for review. ▫ Urbane Legend chinwag 15:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

( re-opened after 5$1⁄2$years )
 * Keflavich is 110% correct, and the other statements here are silly and irrelevant. It is called the Eta Carinae Nebula, because when it was observed in the 18th Century, the star of Eta Carinae predominated the nebula because of its brightness, in fact, making the nebulae difficult to see. Most observers know it as the Eta Carina Nebulae, and it distinguishes it from several other known Carina Nebulae. Whoever requested this move, should be censured because it is not known as this by southern observers. (Note: There are moves afoot to eliminate this naming debacles, like this one, via the IAU.) Arianewiki1 (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * After five and a half years, if you wanted to make this point you'd have been better starting a new thread. But since you are here maybe you can explainhow someone can be "110% correct", particularly as their statement "The nebula is not called the Eta Carinae nebula, it is the Carina Nebula" is diametrically opposed to your own contention. And which exactly are all the other statements which "are silly or irelevant"? Chris H, who agrees with you, or Urbane Legend, who agrees with Keflavitch? Moonraker12 (talk) 09:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

There is absolutely no evidence it is just called the "Carina Nebula". As I said, when the star was 1st magnitude, it was hard to see the nebula, and the name Eta Carina Nebula was adopted. I.e. The nebula around the star.Thousands of southern observers called it the Eta Carina Nebula, and I have not known it as otherwise. Historically, that is how it is. Caldwell is irrelevant, and is only a modern invention. Caldwell is superseded by other catalogues; I.e. NGC 3372, h.3295, &Delta;309. ESO 128-13, etc. There are too many sources that disagree with you. Arianewiki1 (talk) 11:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

It is the Eta Carina Nebula as labelled by Dunlop and John Herschel. There are also other Carina Nebulae in the constellation of Carina too! End of story. (Also "NAME ETA CAR NEBULA" appears in SIMBAD too!. Arianewiki1 (talk) 10:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Five years or one day is irrelevant. If it is wrong, it needs to be changed. Just saying. Arianewiki1 (talk) 11:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Requested move
Consensus was in favour of the move. --bainer (talk) 13:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Eta Carinae Nebula → Carina Nebula — Accuracy and common-name conventions —▫ Urbane Legend chinwag 15:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Support, IIRC the Eta Carinae Nebula is a component of the Great Nebula in Carina. 132.205.99.122 19:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Carina Nebula appears to be a more common name.  Eta Carinae Nebula is ambiguous as it might refer to the Homunculus Nebula. Spacepotato 19:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support &mdash; The new name seems to be unambiguous and more common. &mdash; RJH (talk) 22:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Keyhole nebula
The article says "The diameter of the Keyhole structure is approximately 7 light years." But diameters are generally used for round things, and the Keyhole isn't round, as shown here. Is it 7 light years in length? We need a better word for its size than diameter. Gary (talk) 21:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In astronomy, I've noticed that a diameter is sometimes used for the minimum enclosing circle of an object or feature. Thus, for example, all of the named features on the Moon have a diameter; including irregular formations such as mountain ranges or rilles.&mdash;RJH (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that diameter would typically imply a spherical object which could cause some confusion here. Perhaps some clarification is needed on where how this diameter was determined and what it refers to (e.g. largest, smallest, or average diameter). Also, a citation should be added for this value. CayenneEMatt (talk) 01:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

New image from NASA
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2009/25/image/e/ Kaldari (talk) 20:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Title, lead sentence
The lead sentence of this was boldly changed to simply read “The Eta Carina Nebula...". I’ve reverted this as the title of this article is "Carina Nebula", and the lead should reflect that, per MOS:LEAD. If you object to the title I suggest that you make a requested move to change it, though as the current title was arrived at though WP:RM a few years ago, you will need some cogent arguements to overturn that. Moonraker12 (talk) 09:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * can we get a list of which references use what then and highlight below? Both discussions above are rather lacking in links. Hence linking it out and settling once and for all might be prudent. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok the Hubblesite uses Carina Nebula then.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There’s also this from the AAO. Moonraker12 (talk) 13:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC) [which gives Carina Nebula -- Elphion (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)]
 * Also from AAO: Eta Carinae Nebula [example from Arianewiki1 below]
 * ESO -- Carina Nebula -- Elphion (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Phil Plait -- Carina Nebula -- Elphion (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * APOD -- Carina Nebula -- Elphion (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Astrobites -- Carina Nebula -- Elphion (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * NGC/IC Project (results for NGC 3372) -- eta Carinae Nebula, Keyhole Nebula -- Elphion (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * SEDS -- gives both Carina Nebula and eta Carinae/Argus Nebula -- Elphion (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Deep Sky Observer's Companion -- Keyhole Nebula, Caldwell 92, eta Carinae Nebula (et al.) -- Elphion (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Burnham calls it the Keyhole Nebula which contains The Keyhole, and discusses it under eta Car. -- Elphion (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ellyard & Tirion The Southern Sky Guide -- eta Carinae Nebula, attributes Keyhole Nebula to Herschel. -- Elphion (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * SIMBAD sticks to the NGC number and lists all three as alternate names....sigh Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sky and Telescope, 51, 378 (1976) "A View of the Eta Carina Nebula" [example from Arianewiki1 below]
 * Hur, et al. "Distance and the Initial Mass Function of Young Open Clusters in the &eta; Carina Nebula: Tr 14 and Tr 16" (2012)  [example from Arianewiki1 below]
 * Encyclopaedia of Astronomy and Astrophysics (2001) and (2005) -- Eta Carinae Nebula [example from Arianewiki1 below]


 * Why argue with this person, when the entire article argues just one point of view? My question is why it is originally called the "Eta Argus Nebula", when at the time is was observed and orginally catalogue it was a bright star surrounded by nebulosity. All that was observed was a bright reddish star obscuring the surrounding nebula. Hence. the derivation of the given name. The bias of this article is to such an extent, that ANY reference to "Eta Carina Nebula" is deleted! Why?
 * To quote Webb's "Great Diffused branching milky way nebula with interior darkness about &eta; Argus", showing eta was essential to the nebula." or T.J.J.J. See's "Micrometrical measures of double stars in the great nebulae and cluster around &eta Carinae.." (1897), shows the importance of the nebula and star.
 * Do a simple search is ADS with words "Carina Nebula" in the title, you get many reference, but the vast majority find "Eta Carina Nebula' in the title .   I.e. Sky and Telescope, 51, 378 (1976) "A View of the Eta Carina Nebula"
 * There are even modern papers, like Hur, et al. "Distance and the Initial Mass Function of Young Open Clusters in the &eta; Carina Nebula: Tr 14 and Tr 16" (2012) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012AJ....143…41H etc.
 * Even the "Encyclopaedia of Astronomy and Astrophysics" (2001) and (2005),
 * under topic "Carina", says "...and NGC 3372 (the Eta Carinae Nebula), a large (>4 sq. deg.), bright emission nebula centred on &eta; Carinae." p.522,
 * Under the title "Eta Carina Nebula" pg.1123, saying; "A bright, diffuse nebula, NGC 3373, surrounding the star η Carinae. About 2 deg. across and divided by a dark, V-shaped, obscuring dust-lane, it contains a number of interesting stars and star clusters, and also two major included nebulae—the bright Homunculus Nebula and the dark, absorbing Keyhole Nebula. Its distance has been estimated as about 8000 light-years.",
 * or "Keyhole Nebula (NGC 3324)" pg.2072, saying "A dark nebula in the constellation Carina, position RA 10 h 44.3 m, dec. -59 deg	53'.	It is seen in silhouette against the bright Eta Carinae Nebula."
 * The comments above say the AAO calls it the Carina Nebula, but evidence says the contrary. I.e. "The Eta Carinae Nebula and Trumpler 14" http://www.aao.gov.au/images/captions/aat037.html


 * (Note: Elphion's own opinions and is not a reliable independent source.)
 * [The AAO link above was provided by Moonraker12, not me; the page says quite plainly "Carina Nebula". -- Elphion (talk) 17:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)]


 * Yet for all of this, we are supposed to dump years of usage because someone thinks it should be different! Why? How many references are required to change this? Arianewiki1 (talk) 17:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

No one is arguing whether eta Car is an important feature of the nebula: it is so, and has always been so. We are trying to find what the nebula is commonly called today. The list above is not an argument, but a listing of examples in an attempt to adumbrate which names are in common use. I did not start it, but added examples from several widely-used websites. It is unfiltered -- you will find examples of several names. I have added your examples to the list. You are welcome to add more; but it is already clear that both Carina Nebula and eta Carinae Nebula are in common use, and both should be highlighted in the lead.

Either could reasonably serve as the title of the article, but that is not the subject of this discussion. If you want to request a move, we can have that discussion (again). Be aware, though, that historical priority is not the only criterion that will apply, as the older discussion above (to which I was not a party) already shows.

added: "Why argue with this person, when the entire article argues just one point of view?" Mate, the POV you want to detect in the article is not mine: my sole contribution to this article was a reference to the Caldwell catalogue -- a minor point and not the principal one of this discussion.

-- Elphion (talk) 15:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Arianewiki: If by “why argue with this person” you mean me, then (like Elphion) I should say my only interest in this matter was to stop you riding rough-shod over guideline and principle in order to impose your POV on this article.
 * But, to clear up what the AAO references actually say; the image I posted (AAT 9) is clearly labelled "Carina Nebula" and shows a wide-angle field. Your image (AAT 37) is labelled "Eta Carina Nebula and Trumpler 14" and shows a much narrower field. Also, after referring to it as ECN the text on AAT 37 ends "...the Carina nebula is clearly visible to the unaided eye to those of us who live in the southern hemisphere." This pattern is repeated in the half-a-dozen other AAO images linked; and (I suggest) represents the most up-to-date usage, referring to the object as a whole as the "Carina Nebula" or "Great Carina Nebula", and reserving the term "Eta Carina Nebula" to the nebulosity around, and directly related to, the star itself. Moonraker12 (talk) 22:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Dubious
The introduction has now acquired the statement “Some papers generally refer to this as the Carina Nebula, mostly because of differentiating the many paper published on this object, but the historical precedence as determined by southern observers like James Dunlop and John Herschel, who have both termed it the Eta Argus Nebula or Eta Carina Nebula."(sic) I have tagged this as dubious; First off, the issue isn’t what the thing used to be called historically, but what it is commonly called now; if it has had a variety of names in the past then a section on names would be appropriate. Second, changes here are achieved by consensus, not by fait accompli; if anyone doesn’t like the title they should follow the process for changing it, not try to bludgeon their way to victory. Third, additions should be in reasonable English and make reasonable sense; is this an argument for Eta Argus as a title? Or that southern observers should take precedence because it's in the the southern sky?. Moonraker12 (talk) 11:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for showing your bias, as it is precisely my point. The name of the Eta Carina Nebula is based on precedence, not some airy fairy idea of modernity. If you knew anything about astronomy, you would realise that names are often highly dubious, whose order is often based or the discoverer or the objects history. It is clear their is bias here, because the article never has little written about the history or the discovery of this nebula. "Reasonable English" has nothing to do with the name of the Eta Carinae Nebula, whose supposition is only based on the the name "Orion Nebula", hence, this must apply to the dubious "Carina Nebula."


 * If you examine SIMBAD, you will find that BOTH names are listed, and if you understood the history, "Eta Carina Nebula" come before the name "Carina Nebula." As an visual observer since 1973, I have always known this as the "Eta Carina Nebula", and most in the southern hemisphere know it as such. Clearly you are another northern observer imposing your worldview on others. I suggest you read the references.


 * Wikipedia is supposed to be "on good faith", but your response here is that you have no intention of doing so. So you want consensus via unveiled threats, well all it shows is you've already lost the argument. I will not back down on this imperialistic attitude. Facts speak stronger than mere posturing. The next edit will have more than fifty references showing this is true.


 * Fraudulent naming of deep-sky objects have been found on several by me, with motives from commercialism to outright fraud. Arianewiki1 (talk) 15:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You statement, "but what it is commonly called now", is clearly opinion than based on fact. Naming of astronomical objects is fraught will people trying to make a name for themselves, or imposing their will over historical precedence. Foolishness to claim otherwise shows either naivety or bias; which is against what Wikipedia is about. Arianewiki1 (talk) 15:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't it be Eta Carinae nebula? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Arianewiki: Perhaps I should thank you, for demonstating that you are only hearing what you want to hear.
 * My criticism of what you added was not that I am disputing the validity of your name for the Nebula (though I dispute the primacy of it) I questioned what you added for its tone (being Pointy, POV and having undue weight for the intrioduction) and suggested a naming section as an alternative. I also questioned the writing style (it being grammatically incorrect) and your methods of carrying out his debate. If you are prepared to discuss the matter rationally now, with a view to achieving consensus, well and good.
 * As for the rest, what I do know about astronomy is that many objects have more than one name in common use, and historical precedent counts for very little (taking the 7th planet as an example, discovered by Herschel père and named by him "King George's Star", yet universally known now as Uranus (and of which the pronunciation has changed radically over the past thirty years). As for this object, "Eta Carina Nebula" is as familiar to me as it seems to be to you, but I am at least open to the possibility that it is commonly called something else now. And historical precedent counts for very little in naming stuff on WP either; I suggest you read WP:COMMONNAME and WP:MODERNPLACENAME.
 * As for "imperalism", "unveiled threats", and "northern observers imposing their worldview" I can cheerfully dismiss that as hyperbole if you are going to discuss the matter in a civilized manner from now on. Moonraker12 (talk) 23:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The Keyhole
In older usage (see Burnham, e.g.,) the name "Keyhole Nebula" applies to all of NGC 3372 -- i.e., this is "the nebula that contains the Keyhole". Most modern sources I've seen use "Keyhole Nebula" just for the Keyhole itself. We probably ought to point out this divergence of names in the section on the Keyhole Nebula.

Also, many webpages (e.g. APOD 9 June 2011) mistakenly give the Keyhole the identifier NGC 3324. Our article repeats this, using APOD as a reference. But the catalogue uses the number 3324 for an emission/reflection nebula to the NW of the main Carina Nebula (roughly at epoch 2000.0 coords 10h 37m 20s, &minus;58d 38m), as reflected by Simbad, the NGC Project website, and the Night Sky Observer's Guide (Kepple et al.). So far as I know, the Keyhole itself does not have its own NGC number. Is there another identifier for it?

-- Elphion (talk) 20:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Hearing no objection, I've made changes along these lines. -- Elphion (talk) 01:55, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Carina Nebula.jpg to appear as POTD
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Carina Nebula.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on September 19, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-09-19. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Opening paragraph
I can't make head nor tail of the second sentence. I don't even know what it is *trying* to say, let alone what it actually says. Anybody? Lithopsian (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I couldn't make any sense of it either, and have removed it. Whatever it was trying to say, it was completely unsalvageable in its current form. StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, for such an important article, the prose and content here is, well, rather terrible. I may try to do some expanding later, if time allows. StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree the whole article is poorly worded, but I mostly leave nebulae for someone else. It actually looks pretty good compared to Eta Carinae which I'd been looking at.  I'm still stuck there and just can't see how to fix it with anything short of a rewrite.  Lithopsian (talk) 11:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed that Eta Car is certainly a huge mess currently as well. Unfortunately, it seems that the actually important astronomical object articles here don't get any attention compared to those unimportant minor planet and exoplanet articles, and I'm already swamped on-wiki. I'll try to get around to Eta Carinae sometime though. StringTheory11 (t • c) 20:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Carina Nebula. 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/20090215225758/http://eso.org:80/public/outreach/press-rel/pr-2009/pr-05-09.html to http://www.eso.org/public/outreach/press-rel/pr-2009/pr-05-09.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Carina Nebula
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Carina Nebula's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "grafener": From List of most massive stars:  From WR 22:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:03, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Carina Nebula
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Carina Nebula's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "gosss": From HD 93129:  From NGC 6193:  From WR 25:  

Reference named "vazquez": <li>From NGC 6193: </li> <li>From HD 93129: </li> </ul>

Reference named "smith2006":<ul> <li>From Eta Carinae: </li> <li>From Homunculus Nebula: </li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Seeming contraditions in section on Homunculus
The following two statements in the article seem contradictory in their implications of the size and age of the Homunculus Nebula:

"...the actual linear distance of that point from the central star, which defines the distance. Values obtained using this method are around 2.3 kiloparsecs (7,500 ly)". By implication, the nebula is significantly older than 7,500 years.

"It is believed to have been ejected in an enormous outburst in 1841". By implication, the radius of the nebula well below 176 light years.

Would anyone be able to clarify this seeming contradiction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralph Purtcher (talk • contribs) 08:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Since the nebula is about 7500 ly away, the explosion must have occurred over 7500 years ago; but it was observed on Earth in 1841, so the initial light from the explosion reached us only 176 years ago. Thus from the explosion to the state we see it in now is only a span of 176 years, limiting the size of the nebula as we see it now.  (I agree that the text is not as clear as it might be.) -- Elphion (talk) 14:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I've reworded the paragraph I think you're having trouble with. Hopefully it is clearer and addresses any confusion. The largest distance of the outer shell of the bipolar nebula from the central object is 22,000 AU, about a tenth of a parsec. I think I'll add that too, good information. Lithopsian (talk) 15:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Carina Nebula by ESO.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Carina Nebula by ESO.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on September 19, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-09-19. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)