Talk:NGC 5195

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Astronomy / Astronomical objects  (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.

I have expanded the article, but I'll leave the notice there since I think it still hasn't reached full length. Funnybunny (talk/Counter Vandalism Unit) 01:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[]

Classification per NED is weird[edit]

I do not understand NED's result.

The Third Reference Catalogue (RC3) gives the Hubble type as I0 pec. (NED has a link labeled "RC3 data" on its search results underneath the thumbnail image. This leads to NED's copy of the RC3 data. It may be incomprehensible unless you are used to reading the entries.) Hyperleda (also linked under the thumbnail on the NED search results page) gives the type as SBa (in another incomprehensible form). It might be appropriate to leave it blank, as no one has reached any clear consensus. (If I had to assign a Hubble type, I would go with E or I0.) Dr. Submillimeter 18:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[]

Contradict warning[edit]

I placed the "contradict" warning on NGC 5195 because various statements in the Wikipedia article describe it as spiral, irregular, or lenticular. A more verbose description of the morphology is needed; I may attempt to add one in the next month. Dr. Submillimeter 15:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[]

Cleared Contradiction[edit]

I re-worked the phrasing to keep it consistent as a barred lenticular (just another name for SB0), but noted that some consider it irregular. Admittedly, its pretty hard to judge, but most of the data for wikipedia articles comes from NASA/IPAC ...

Eteq 03:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[]

I used better references to demonstrate that the galaxy is difficult to classify. As indicated in the discussion further up in this page, the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database produced strange results for this galaxy that were not consistent with other references. It should not have been relied upon for the discussion on morphology in this article. Dr. Submillimeter 10:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[]

Dr Submillimeter, you are correct to doubt ![edit]

Up until a few years ago, much of the literature that classified this galaxy as one of a various kind of irregular assumed that the dark lanes across this galaxy were apart of the galaxy, and that is why no sense could be made of the structure. With recent realization that this galaxy is slighly further away than M51, and that therefore much of the obscuring dark matter was from that galaxy, a whole new picture emerges. If you can mentally remove the obvious M51 dark lanes, and concentrate on what SEEMS to be intrinsic to this galaxy, it has a striking resemblance of NGC 1316. But that's just my POV. Old_Wombat (talk) 08:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on NGC 5195. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[]