Talk:Messier 100

Proposed rename

Requested move: result was to move all

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. The result of the debate was Move all. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC) Requested move Globular Cluster M2 to Messier 2 Globular Cluster M4 to Messier 4 Globular Cluster M9 to Messier 9 Open Cluster M21 to Messier 21 Open Cluster M26 to Messier 26 Dwarf Elliptical Galaxy M32 to Messier 32 Open Cluster M34 to Messier 34 Open Cluster M35 to Messier 35 Open Cluster M36 to Messier 36 Open Cluster M37 to Messier 37 Open Cluster M39 to Messier 39 Open Cluster M41 to Messier 41 M43 (nebula) to Messier 43 Open Cluster M46 to Messier 46 Open Cluster M47 to Messier 47 Open Cluster M48 to Messier 48 Open Cluster M50 to Messier 50 Open Cluster M52 to Messier 52 Globular Cluster M53 to Messier 53 Globular Cluster M54 to Messier 54 Globular Cluster M55 to Messier 55 Globular Cluster M56 to Messier 56 Spiral Galaxy M66 to Messier 66 Open Cluster M67 to Messier 67 Globular Cluster M68 to Messier 68 Globular Cluster M69 to Messier 69 Globular Cluster M70 to Messier 70 Globular Cluster M72 to Messier 72 M73 (star group) to Messier 73 Globular Cluster M75 to Messier 75 Lenticular Galaxy M84 to Messier 84 Elliptical Galaxy M87 to Messier 87 Spiral Galaxy M91 to Messier 91 Globular Cluster M92 to Messier 92 Open Cluster M93 to Messier 93 Spiral Galaxy M100 to Messier 100 Open Cluster M103 to Messier 103 Dwarf Elliptical Galaxy M110 to Messier 110 Most of these go against the typical Wikipedia convention to disambiguate articles by using parentheses after the article name, and discussion on WikiProject Astronomical objects has come to the view that the format should be Messier #. Many of the destination pages are redirects with more than one item in the history. Chaos syndrome 20:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC) Discussion Please discuss this move at Talk:Globular Cluster M2. The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Distance

Per the SIMBAD 'distance' measurements entry, the following reference:

Crook, Aidan C.; Huchra, John P.; Martimbeau, Nathalie; Masters, Karen L.; Jarrett, Tom; Macri, Lucas M. (2007). "Groups of Galaxies in the Two Micron All Sky Redshift Survey". The Astrophysical Journal. 655 (2): 79–813. Bibcode:2007ApJ...655..790C. doi:10.1086/510201. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

gives a distance estimate of about 20 mpc (65 mly) rather than 55 mly.—RJH (talk) 18:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this sentence too long to be readable?

"As usual on spiral galaxies of the Virgo Cluster, in the rest of the disk both star formation and neutral hydrogen, of which M100 is deficient compared to isolated spiral galaxies of similar Hubble type, are truncated within the galaxy's disk, which is caused by interactions with the intracluster medium of Virgo." Unmismoobjetivo (talk) 06:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes! The comparison between M100 and Hubble type galaxies is wedged into a sentence about star formation regions. The sentence is ambiguous WRT which is deficient, star formation or neutral hydrogen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Targa86 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)