Talk:Messier object/Archive 1

Bad external link
I removed this link that was posted by an anonymous user: Messier Catalogue Interactive map. If you look through the information on the website, you will find many errors. Among these (in general terms): This website is so misinformative that it should be kept off Wikipedia until it is fixed. GeorgeJBendo 15:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The NGC numbers of the Messier objects are incorrect.
 * The distances are grossly incorrect. (The Whirlpool Galaxy is not at a distance of 7 light years.)
 * The Hubble types of galaxies are written incorrectly.
 * The classifications for other things are obscure at best. (The Ring Nebula is classified as "IV (III)".)

Source of magnitudes
I like the the color coding of the table. Could a source be given for the magnitudes, however? They seem consistently higher (fainter) than values one sees quoted elsewhere. Are they from an old book? It is my impression that magnitudes assigned to Messier objects have gone down over the years, possibly due to changes in technology. BodachMor 15:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Completing the thumbnail pics
The intro to the article has a poster-size graphic of all Messier objects. Can we use this as a source, chop it up, and create thumbnails for the remaining objects that currently have no associated picture?

I'd be willing to do the work to finish out the list, but I didn't know if this is allowed by copyright, etc. BradC 22:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

RA/Dec
This table is great! Can we also add a column describing the RA/Dec too? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.48.196.9 (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC).


 * That could probably be done. I see a few things in the table that could use clean-up.  Maybe a general discussion on the format is needed before making changes.  Dr. Submillimeter 22:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thumbnails
List now has thumbnails for all the objects, but some of the articles don't include the pictures. That needs tidying up. Also, some of the pictures are, frankly, not the best available, could use cropping, etc. Could we take a more systematic approach to getting nice pictures of the Messier objects? Carcharoth 17:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Table
Although dividing the tables into many parts can let people easily searching and seeing the name of column, combining them into one with 110 rows can make people using the wiki-sort to find out some extreme data and some ranking.--Prince Max 12:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

M102
this entry needs to be fixed, the linked to article states that no definitive object can be determined. 70.55.200.131 (talk) 23:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Decimal Separator Inconsistency?
Why is the kly section written using the '.' as the decimal separator and the apparent magnitudes written with a ','? That seems it a bit strange to me. If someone wouldn't mind taking a look... -- A L K  (Talk) 18:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * . 84user (talk) 21:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

OC/GC
It is custom to distinguish globular clusters from open clusters. I think their colors should be different. And I find it weird that the color marking HII regions are sky blue ("aqua") since the real HII regions are pink. I'll be back! Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 13:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Fixed: more realistic colors and distinguishing into the classes: open cluster, globular cluster, bright nebula, planetary nebula, supernova remnant and galaxy. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 15:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair use candidate from Commons: File:NGC 628.jpg
The file File:NGC 628.jpg, used on this page, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons and re-uploaded at File:NGC 628.jpg. It should be reviewed to determine if it is compliant with this project's non-free content policy, or else should be deleted and removed from this page. Commons fair use upload bot (talk) 03:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Distances incoherent
On the table, if you order the ojects by distance, nearby objects and far objects are mixed. It is due to the fact that million light years and kilo light years are considered the same here! The galaxy M81, for example, is now closer than the star cluster M71, because M81 is at 12Mly, while M71 is at 13Kly!
 * This is an issue with the way Wikitables sort information. I think I remember seeing a workaround somewhere; I'll try to locate it. Primefac (talk) 20:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Conflicting (or unclear) statements in the writing.
The Messier objects are a set of 110 astronomical objects catalogued by the French astronomer Charles Messier in his "Catalogue des Nébuleuses et des Amas d'Étoiles" ("Catalogue of Nebulae and Star Clusters"). Originally published in 1771, the last item was added in 1966 by Kenneth Glyn Jones, based on Messier's observations.[1] The first version of Messier's catalogue contained 45 objects and was published in 1774 in the journal of the French Academy of Sciences in Paris.

What objects were published in 1771 if the first version was published in 1774? Is this a contradiction or does this just need to be more clear?


 * 1771 was a preliminary version. I made an edit attempting to clarify. Davemck (talk) 23:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Messier object. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110129040632/http://www.astronomycatalogues.com/index.php?pr=messier to http://www.astronomycatalogues.com/index.php?pr=messier

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I removed the link entirely. No point in keeping a Flash now archived from an evaporated source.  There are plenty of versions of the Messier list available. -- Elphion (talk) 13:33, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Object type of M104
This list claims that M104 is a spiral galaxy. However, the article on this galaxy says this is an elliptical galaxy. Which is correct? arXiv:1610.03857 seems to support the claim that this is an elliptical galaxy, so the type in this list seems to be incoorect. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  15:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It looks like a lenticular galaxy. However, NEDS lists a class of SA(s)a, which would be a tight, unbarred spiral. Praemonitus (talk) 15:21, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * See here for a summary of current thinking. Lithopsian (talk) 14:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposal

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I propose to merge List of Messier objects into Messier object. The content in the list can be explained in the context of the main article, which is Messier objects. There is just two para in the article 1 and adding the list to the main seems logical and will remove the redundancy. I've moved it last week only to be reverted back. The list was in the middle of an FLC when the proposal rose and hence the merge was executed. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Much of the content on the two articles is redundant and there is no reason to duplicate it. The prose is not too long to require a split. Seems like a no-brainer to me, this would be a great improvement by consolidating the unique information and cutting the repetitive information. Reywas92Talk 19:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support To expand on my original comment at the FLC: it doesn't make sense to split out the list of objects from this article unless the article is already really long, and it's not- it has very little content that isn't in both, and as far as I'm aware no one has said that this is due to a giant gap in writing. I'm also unaware of any "rule" in the astronomy project(s) that would require the list be separate. And again as I said at FLC, the result of merging "Messier object" with "List of Messier objects", despite being at the title of the former, would be pretty much the list (and thus eligible for FLC)- the actual table/list of objects is the main subject and most of the length of the resulting merged article. I'm unsure why reverted the merge, beyond a dislike of bold merges, so hopefully this more formal discussion clears this up. -- Pres  N  04:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, without a merge it would just be redundant. Mattximus (talk) 22:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I notified WT:AST of the discussion. I'm not a huge fan of the merger proposal, but I won't stand in the way if there is consensus to do so. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:10, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, I don't see a need for them to be separate given neither is excessively large. ChiZeroOne (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, the Messier objects were a list of objects, indeed, so I don't see enough difference to keep them separated. Psyluke (talk) 14:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:30, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Messier 106 by Spitzer.jpg
 * Whirlpool (M51).jpg

M102 missing from Chart
M102 is missing from the chart, I am not sure how to edit it and don't have the right font. Stub Mandrel (talk) 23:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
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) 20:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Whirlpool (M51).jpg

Coordinates and apparent magnitudes are wrong when compared to what's on each individual page
For example, M 18 declination in this list is –17° 08′, but on Messier 18 is –17° 06′ 06″ (which seems to be the correct value). There are a lot of inconsistencies, not only in coordinates but also apparent magnitudes and sizes. Sebagr (talk) 15:32, 12 August 2021 (UTC)


 * @Sebagr The fundamental problem is that astronomy is haaaard. There are often a lot of different papers giving values for these most interesting objects and this article and the main one probably just use different ones. Feel free to change to better values if you want. --Trialpears (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Distance estimates (and the absolute magnitude figures that depend on them) are frequently revised. Also, ideally coordinates (or column heads for coordinates) should be labeled with the epoch of the coordinates.  (The ones here are presumably J2000.0, but I haven't checked -- and different epochs might be the source of some of the variation). -- Elphion (talk) 19:10, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm in the process of adjusting apparent magnitude values so the list is consistent with citations and articles. May take me a few days. Assambrew (talk) 01:22, 29 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Completed my changes. Assambrew (talk) 20:18, 30 April 2022 (UTC)