Template talk:Editnotices/Page/IC 1101

Template-protected edit request on 21 January 2015
These statements are neither verifiable or helpful. If some sources are saying this is the largest galaxy known and others express doubt, the it would be correct to say, "it is likely the largest known galaxy", etc. Saying "…is a huge number of light-years across", would surely based on if it the statement is verifiable, and if the statement is referenced.

"This figure refers to the surrounding diffuse halo, which is not considered part of the galaxy for size measurements,"

On what evidence? I can find no reference that states these words other than the Template creator's Tetra quark own assertions. It is still being debated. 

The statement there is consensus, that this is "such a measurement is not appropriate for this article." is plainly false. The issue is still trying to reach consensus, as

Tetra quark seems to have quite a different way of understanding what 'consensus' means.

The point of this seems to be more WP:GAMING than editing ?

There seems absolutely no reason to add this template at all.

Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —  03:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * , I've edited the editnotice to point readers to the discussion at WT:AST, and removed some of the unnecessary words. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * There is also a discussion here. and


 * There is already no dispute with the statements, as they are both verifiable (stated as reference) and are reliable, that meets the criteria of edits. Tetra quark somehow wants to change how this is done, with all galaxies, and I don't see why he's just picked this page? Frankly, he's asking the wrong questions and expects other to run around solving it. I've already explained it, with references, and give a practical way to solve it.


 * I see little competence to justify this debate, and that consensus will never be reached as the errors are so large and are based on complex criteria. The template just should be totally removed, and consensus should be done just like any other article. (Hell. I'm still arguing between giga-light-years and megaparsecs in articles, and Tetra quark  true size, rely on these distances. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)