Talk:Triangulum Galaxy

Star Formation

I've read in several (non-wikipedia) articles that the star formation rate is much higher in M33 then in M31 or the MilkyWay, but I can't find an official source. Could someone assist me in this? DaMatriX 21:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The star formation in M33 and M31 are about equal, but roughly ten times less than in the Milky Way. See these publications for the Milky Way, M31, and - tM33 bambulko

Distance Measurement

The distance measurements to the Triangulum Galaxy deserve a subsection with a thorough discussion (and possibly a table). The infobox should not be constrained to one distance measurement. I may try this myself. (Also, the reference used for the distance at this time, which is Bonanos et al. (2006), admits that its distance measurement is high. They explain this discrepancy as a problem with everyone else's measurement, but this would need to be verified.) GeorgeJBendo 21:23, 29 are appropriate. October 2006 (UTC)

Right now, main article lists 3.14 Mly, and subsection sais 2.92 ± 0.13 Mly (3.14, obviously, does NOT fall into this range. Someone should fix this? 82.207.25.235

I will try to do it in the next week. An lengthy section will need to be written on the topic. Dr. Submillimeter 20:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Pinwheel Galaxy

I added the alternative name. I agree 'Triangulum Galaxy' is the better name, but I have seen 'Pinwheel Galaxy' so many times (in fact more than 'Triangulum Galaxy') that this article would be incomplete without mentioning it. The way, the truth, and the light 22:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

In the future, I suggest citing either SIMBAD or NED. Wikipedia articles on astronomical objects have had problems with made-up names and generally unaccepted nicknames in the past. I am still going to edit the addition; SIMBAD gives the name "Traingulum Pinwheel". Dr. Submillimeter 23:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

'Pinwheel Galaxy' is a very common name. The cite I gave is one of many Google hits using the name for M33; I've been involved with amateur astronomy in the past and know that 'Pinwheel Galaxy' was the most common name for it (other than 'M33'). 'Triangulum Pinwheel' has perhaps been used to distinguish from M101, but I've never seen it in print.

The problem is that every amateur astronomer or every amateur astronomy group has its own nicknames for objects. SIMBAD and NED, which are professional astronomy websites, give nicknames for astronomical objects that are in common use. Please use only those websites.

All I can say is: look at the Google results yourself if you're not convinced. The way, the truth, and the light 03:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Also note that the name is not "depreciated". If it is, you had better find a reference that is better than SIMBAD. Dr. Submillimeter 23:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Calling it 'deprecated' was my personal opinion that may not belong in the article. I myself believe that 'Triangulum Galaxy' is the better name. The way, the truth, and the light 01:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You cannot use personal opinion to write Wikipedia articles. Moreover, the name does not appear to be officially depreciated; it is still listed as a nickname for the galaxy at SIMBAD. Dr. Submillimeter 09:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The word is 'deprecated', not 'depreciated' - [1]. Anyway I agreed to withdraw the sentence, even though similar are found in many other articles. The way, the truth, and the light 03:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The name "Triangulum Pinwheel" is already given in the infobox, and it is backed up by a much more reliable website than the one that you have been using. I also put "Triangulum Pinwheel" in the parenthetical phrase of the first sentence. You do not need to put it into the text. If you continue to do so, I will ask User:Irishguy to intervene. Dr. Submillimeter 09:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

'Triangulum Pinwheel' has a right to be in the info-box, I suppose. But it gets almost no Google hits, compared to the 2 other names, and most are of the form 'Triangulum/Pinwheel', and thus not true uses. The citation I provided for the alternate name is the first professional-type site I found that used it. It is not the only one. The alternative name in the text should be 'Pinwheel Galaxy', not 'Triangulum Pinwheel', obviously. The way, the truth, and the light 14:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, in Wikipedia in general, those of us at Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects have been relying exclusively on the SIMBAD Astronomical Database and the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database for nicknames for extragalactic objects. That is because other websites and books, including websites at academic institutions, will use informal or made-up names that are not generally unaccepted. Both theSIMBAD Astronomical Database and theNASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database are the best primary references for professional astronomers when it comes to astronomical names. The University of Arizona, although a leading institution in astronomy research, is not an authority for naming astronomical objects in general.

Moreover, your assertion that a Google search on "Triangulum Pinwheel" turns up no results is plainly false. My Google search turned up [2], [3], [4], [5], and [6] just to begin with. Furthermore, most searches on "Pinwheel Galaxy" in Google turn up pages on M101, not M33. The repeated insertion of the phrase describing this galaxy as the "Pinwheel Galaxy" is inappropriate.

I have now asked User:Irishguy to moderate. Dr. Submillimeter 14:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I never said 'Triangulum Pinwheel' gave no results, just few results compared to the other two names - by the way, 2 of your examples also mention the name 'Pinwheel Galaxy'. It is true that a majority of 'Pinwheel Galaxy' results are M101, but not a very large majority - about 2/3 maybe. Wikipedia ought to describe what names actually are used, not what names we think should be used. The way, the truth, and the light 15:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You stated above Calling it 'deprecated' was my personal opinion that may not belong in the article. I myself believe that 'Triangulum Galaxy' is the better name. but now you claim Wikipedia ought to describe what names actually are used, not what names we think should be used.. You can't have it both ways. Wikipedia must use only verifiable encyclopedic information...not what you believe to be the better name. Please discuss things on the talk page and attempt to gain consensus. Don't edit war. IrishGuy ^talk 15:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

(Resonse to The way, the truth, and the light.) As I stated before, Wikipedia has been using the SIMBAD Astronomical Database and the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database for alternate names for astronomical objects. These are THE MOST RELIABLE REFERENCES for astronomical object names. They are administered by professional astronomers working under contract with scientific agencies (including NASA) to provide these types of data to the professional astronomical community. Your websites, however, are administered by individual people who simply want to show their images. They are not intended to be scientific resources, so they are not reliable references for information on astronomical object names. Dr. Submillimeter 15:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

First, you are trying to push a standard of using only SIMBAD and NED for names. I would like to see evidence that someone else also agrees with your standard, as I don't think one editor should be allowed to push through something like that; remember that no one owns articles here. I do not think that necessarily professional databases should be the final authority on names, as professionals often do not care about common names; also, the databases are too large for any person to maintain, meaning that errors are unavoidable, and common sense must be applied.

Second, there's a reason why SIMBAD doesn't have 'Pinwheel Galaxy' for M33: their database apparently does not allow one name to be shared by more than one object, as searching on a name can only return one entry. (NED doesn't have 'Pinwheel' for anything, so doesn't apply here.) If the name must be applied to just one object, M101 is the best choice. Wikipedia is not under that restriction. The way, the truth, and the light 18:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

If the name must be applied to just one object, M101 is the best choice. Based on what reasoning? IrishGuy ^talk 18:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm allowed to express personal opinions on a talk page. Anyway, neither of us are disputing that. The page for M101 is currently at 'Pinwheel Galaxy', although a move could be proposed if you think 'Pinwheel Galaxy' ought to get the disambiguation page. The way, the truth, and the light 18:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm asking your reasoning. If you admit that M101 is the best choice for "Pinwheel Galaxy" and not M33...then why are you pushing to add "Pinwheel Galaxy" to M33? IrishGuy ^talk 18:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

As I just said on this page, Wikipedia ought to describe what names actually are used, not what names we think should be used. The way, the truth, and the light 18:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

An abstract search for "NASA/IPAC Extagalactic Database" at the ADS Abstract Service turns up 166 abstracts that mention the database in the abstract, and an abstract search for "SIMBAD" turns up 278 articles that mention the database in the abstract. However, the database is normally acknowledged in the abstracts of articles but in acknoledgment sections (see, for example, this paper on which I am a co-author). Clearly, the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database and the SIMBAD Astronomical Database are used by professional astronomers for data on astronomical objects in general. However, the fact that one of the websites is sponsored by NASA (see [7])and that the other has agreements with many science agencies (see [8]) should indicate that these are highly reliable professional resources. Dr. Submillimeter 19:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know that these databases are used by professional astronomers. Please respond to my points above. The way, the truth, and the light 19:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You don't have any points above. Your admitted that M101 is the best choice for "Pinwheel Galaxy" and not M33. Your entire argument stands on the fact that you would personally prefer to have "Pinwheel Galaxy" in the article....even though the reliable professional databases disagree. IrishGuy ^talk 19:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You fail to understand the issue. My personal preference should not determine what goes in the article. I have been consistent in saying that, although I prefer the name 'Triangulum Galaxy', the alternative name needs to be mentioned. The way, the truth, and the light 19:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Based on what? You even concede that the term "Pinwheel Galaxy" is more suitably used for M101. IrishGuy ^talk 20:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

That is not a concession! It is what I have believed from the start. The way, the truth, and the light 20:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed the sentence because it did not come from a reliable reference (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources). If The way, the truth, and the light can find some reliable sources for his name, then the sentence can be placed back in the article. At this point, I have sufficiently justified my position, whereas The way, the truth, and the light has not. Dr. Submillimeter 10:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The concept of reliable sources is relative. In scientific matters, academic sources are strongly preferred. But a name for something is not a scientific claim. For example, the American Bison article mentions in the first sentence that it is commonly called 'buffalo', even though that name is never used by scientists. It doesn't cite any source for that, either.

You haven't really justified your position besides repeating the same claim. But you haven't cited any policy or guideline that says only SIMBAD and NED may be used for this, and even if there were it would be worth making an exception here. In addition, SIMBAD and NED do not actually support you, for the reason I mentioned above: SIMBAD can't for technical reasons list the name, and NED doesn't give 'Pinwheel Galaxy' for anything. The way, the truth, and the light 17:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

That is faulty logic. Because neither of those sources lists the nickname...that somehow means they aren't reliable? Or would it more accurately mean, M33 is not considered "pinwheel galaxy"? Please stop trying to impose your personal preferences into articles. IrishGuy ^talk 18:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Provide a reliable reference. Then we discuss this further. Dr. Submillimeter 17:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You have already stated that you will only accept SIMBAD and NED. Meanwhile you have ignored all my pertinent claims. The way, the truth, and the light 18:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to propose the move mentioned above. It should be uncontroversial because the disambiguation already exists. The way, the truth, and the light 20:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I am going to ask both of you to stop edit warring. I have reverted to the version without "Pinwheel Galaxy" and ask that you reach a consensus here on the talk page before adding it again. Thanks. It might be constructive if you both think about allowing for Mediation here. IrishGuy ^talk 18:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, from the days of yore, spiral galaxies were sometimes called pinwheel nebulae. Thus, any spiral galaxy might also be known as a pinwheel galaxy. So, the Triangulum Spiral Galaxy, might be called the Triangulum Pinwheel Nebula. 132.205.44.134 23:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Compromise proposal

Here is an alternate passage that I suggest for the article:

The galaxy is also sometimes informally referred to as the "Pinwheel Galaxy" by some amateur astronomy references and in some public outreach websites. However, the SIMBAD Astronomical Database, a professional astronomy database that contains formal designations for astronomical objects, indicates that the name "Pinwheel Galaxy" should be used to refer to Messier 101, and several other amateur astronomy resources and other public outreach websites also identify Messier 101 as the "Pinwheel Galaxy".

Note that this discussion provides a more thorough discussion on the use of the name in amateur and professional astronomy and also places the references into context. Also note that this version avoids referencing the unreviewed websites of individual people, which are not reliable references (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources).

Note that the SIMBAD Astronomical Database is a professional astronomy resource maintained by the Centre de Données astronomiques de Strasbourg, a French national research institution that has signed agreements with NASA, PPARC, and science agentions in several other countries. This is a professional resource used by professional astronomers. A specific concern was raised about the ability of the SIMBAD Astronomical Database to resolve duplicate names for astronomical objects and so it would potentially give inaccurate information for both Messier 33 and Messier 101. However, note that SIMBAD uses notes to indicate when celestial objects have duplicate names or are associated with larger objects. (See, for example, search results for NGC 6027,NGC 6027a, NGC 6027b, NGC 6027c, NGC 6027d, and NGC 6027e as one example.)

Mooning and slavering over SIMBAD is senseless. Its nomenclature has been established for its own purpose, which is getting SIMBAD to work. It doesn't correspond to NED, and there's no reason it should. If editorial policy is an issue, it needs to be thought out from first principles, which of course could use establishing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.166.67.2 (talk) 03:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like feedback from multiple people on this compromise proposal, including The way, the truth, and the light, IrishGuy, and the people at Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects. I would suggest weighting all opinions equally even though some contributors to this discussion may not be professional extragalactic astronomers, and that the comments of . I would suggest acknowledging the commentary of people with anonymous IP addresses and weighting these comments equally with the comments of registered users. I would also suggest accepting that notification of this discussion at other talk pages is highly appropriate to garner additional user input.

If I receive no commentary by 14 May 2007, I will assume that this proposal is acceptable, and I will insert this revised text into the webpage. If my above proposal is not at least accepted as a starting point for additional discussion, then I will seek additional intervention at Wikipedia:Mediation (as suggested by IrishGuy) or seek other dispute resolution measures at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Dr. Submillimeter 10:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The suggested text above looks fine. In regards to the use of pinwheel, there are other galaxies besides M101 that are sometimes descriptively referred to as a "pinwheel." Besides the M33 Triangulum Pinwheel there is also M83 The Southern Pinwheel Galaxy. These other pinwheels typically have a qualifier in front of the name to avoid confusion with M101. Just because unreliable sources [9] drop the qualifier and refer to M33 as the Pinwheel Galaxy does not make it a commonly used name.--mikeu 15:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Not trying to muddy the waters, but I also find sources that list M99 as the "Pinwheel Galaxy". Some compromise by calling M99 the "Coma Pinwheel galaxy". Other sources refer to M33 as "Triangulum Pinwheel Galaxy" while M83 is called the "Southern Pinwheel Galaxy". A "pinwheel galaxy" disambiguation page might actually be beneficial, and we could include the above explanation. — RJH (talk) 22:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

There already is a disambiguation page at Pinwheel Galaxy (disambiguation). See the requested move at Talk:Pinwheel Galaxy#Requested move. The way, the truth, and the light 23:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Unfortunately even press releases from professional astronomical organizations appear to suffer from ambiguity. A news release from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics lists M33 as the pinwheel galaxy. Another from the STScI lists M101 as the pinwheel galaxy. I almost think we would need an IAU nomenclature committee to settle this one. My personal preference would be to call M101 "pinwheel" (because of NED) and M33 "triangulum pinwheel", just to limit the ambiguity. I'm fine with Dr. Submillimeter's suggestion, although it seems a little unwieldy. Could it be inserted as a note? — RJH (talk) 18:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

At this point, multiple other interested parties (including The way, the truth, and the light) have commented. I assume that my proposal is acceptable. I will insert it on 11 May 2007 unless I receive further objections. Dr. Submillimeter

Picture

I'm not happy with the picture of M33.

M33 is one of the 'biggest', galaxies in the northern hemisphere and a favorite target for astrophotographers and amateur astronomers. But what one will see (on a 'normal' photography - or with a fast Telescope) is completeley different from what the picture shows us here. One has to open the picture and read the full description to understand that this image shows the Ultraviolet-Part of the spectrum - which is invisible to the human eye! This means what the picture shows can never be seen this way - and even worst, some really bright, yellow stars completeley dissapear from the picture, since they are relativeley dark in the UV-Spectrum. The same is true for many of the really interesting details which can be seen in the visible spectrum, especially dust and many 'nebulae'. Even the interesting region NGC 604 which is discussed in the article is just visible as a tiny white dot without any structure. Not to talk about the lifeless false-colors. Dont take me wrong, the NASA-Picture from Spitzer is very interesting - but just a bit missplaced at this point. It's somehow as if a wiki-article about a well known person would show an x-ray of his head instead of a 'normal' photograph...

Therefore, I replace the picture with a photography I made by mysef with a typical small (10cm) amateur-telescope and a optimized digital SLR (Canon 20Da). Sure it's not a perfect astronomy picture - but it shows a lot more details as the one from spitzer, has a much better resolution (one can even identify NGC 604). And it shows how the galaxy really looks like in - more or less - real colors! I'm sure there are much better amateur-pictures or professionel real-color-pictures of M31 out there. I'm happy to see my picture replaced with a significantly better one - but please dont replace it with a picture showing infrared, x-ray, ultraviolett or any other invisible radiation. Mschcsc 14:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Black Hole Found

• Heaviest stellar black hole found in nearby galaxy
• Chandra press room Chandra X-ray Observatory

--George100 (talk) 08:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

References

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mu301 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Is the name correct?

Ive heard the name is Triangular, not Triangulum--24.6.203.163 (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It is most definitely "triangulum", named after the constellation it is in.Todd (talk) 04:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Most distant object visible to the naked eye?

Is M33 the most distant object visible to the naked eye? It's further than the Andromeda Galaxy, so if it can be seen by the naked eye (and according to other wikipedia articles it can) then it probably would be 128.232.228.174 (talk) 17:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

M81 may hold the naked eye record.[10] -- Kheider (talk) 11:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

M81 at visual magnitude 6.9 is just a bit too faint for the average naked eye (6.5 limiting). The article on Gamma Ray Burst GRB_080319B does list M33 as the most distant "permanent" (i.e., not a GRB or nova) object visible to the naked eye. 68.33.111.102 (talk) 03:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The NASA reference states, "If you venture out to a remote location and gaze into the sky on a dark, moonless night, the farthest object you can see with your naked eye is a spiral galaxy called M33." In this case I suspect "you" refers to an untrained amateur that does not spend 30+ minutes adapting to the dark and is not at a true Bortle Dark-Sky Scale class 1 location. -- Kheider (talk) 08:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Name

shouldn't this be Triangulum, NOT Triangulum Galaxy? 121.218.193.145 (talk) 07:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Picture overload

I am just going to say from the outset that the two amateur photos are both incredible. I am not trying to pick favorites or anything, but the fact is this article looks terrible, and its mostly because there are way too many pictures. There should only be one picture of the object itself (I picked the one where the object is more centered in the frame), and I don't see any reason why it needs a picture of how it looks in a software program. The celestial map is useful and I think the NGC 604 pic is also useful (and really cool looking). Anything more and the article looks cluttered. Daniel J Simanek (talk) 06:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I would make one refinement to that sentiment: M33 may have interesting features that are most visible in X-ray, IR, or whatever, justifying separate pictures. But not merely redundant visible-light images. Jmacwiki (talk) 20:21, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree - IR & UV etc justify separate images, but their orientations seem all over the place. Can we indicate at least the images with a non-standard orientation ? - Rod57 (talk) 14:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Independence?

The text currently states that,

M33 was also catalogued independently by William Herschel on September 11, 1784 number H V.17.

However, Herschel received a copy of Messier's catalogue in 1781 and immediately set out to view those objects. Thus it is unclear how he could have "independently" catalogued M33. I was "bold" and removed that word from the text because of the absence of citation.—RJH (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Mention rotation curve ?

M33 rotation curve often used to show effects of dark matter. Why not mention here ? How much dark matter is M33 calculated to have ? - Rod57 (talk) 11:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Claim for Milky Way being largest in mass

I have removed this claim – again. While it was sourced, various sources give widely varying estimates, so the Milky Way may or may not be more massive than Andromeda Galaxy. That would require a more distinctive discussion for which this article really isn't the right place, and we should leave it to the respective pages. If those articles show a wide acceptance of the required estimates, then it can be added here as well. For Triangulum, it's quite sufficient to show that it's smaller than the other two as it is. --Zac67 (talk) 07:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Clarify from which hemisphere it is visible

The article contains the phrase "Under exceptionally good viewing conditions with no light pollution, the Triangulum Galaxy can be seen with the 20/20 vision naked eye" but makes no mention of which hemisphere of the Earth one would need to be on for this to be possible? Is it visible from the Northern or the Southern hemisphere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.156.255.250 (talk) 07:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Infobox already gives declination as +30 degrees, which (correctly) makes it Northern. Jmacwiki (talk) 06:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Relevance of PN section?

I'm not sure what the purpose of the section regarding planetary nebulae is. It either needs more clarification regarding its importance to the Triangulum galaxy in particular or may need to be removed. Patchworkpieces (talk) 21:35, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I have since removed this section. Patchworkpieces (talk) 01:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

2,730,000 or 3,200,000 light years away?

In the beginning of this article it says that it is 2.73 million light years away from Earth. But in the stats section, it says that it is 3.2 million light years away from Earth. Which one is correct? Orangefanta120 (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2024 (UTC)