Talk:Bulge (astronomy)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Astronomy / Astronomical objects  (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Bulge (astronomy) 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.
 High  This article has been rated as High-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.


"Most bulges are thought to host a supermassive black hole at their center. Such black holes have never been directly observed, but many indirect proofs exist."

Is "proofs" the best term to use here? It seems to me that a better phrasing would be "but much indirect evidence exists." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Necroforest (talkcontribs) .

mh just about every article about galaxys mentions them, also every major institute in astronomy does, i have my doubts about some of the black hole theory myself, but that there are major and very forcefull phenomena at the centre/basis of plenty if not all galaxys is pretty obvious. as long as the physics on it does not improve, in astronomy when it ever gets obsolete, that would be a good joke:). (talk) 23:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


I don't think this article is a stub, since I has multiple sections and content that does not fall into the "irrelevant or incomprehensible" category. I'm looking over it and (although it does need some citations) the article appears to be at least a Start Class article. I'll be going over the article and doing some edits but still even in the current condition it appears to be a Start. Marx01 Tell me about it 23:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

As of right now I'm going to change it to a Start Class. The article doesn't seem to have any errors that would make it a stub, and it is certainly longer than any stub I've seen. Marx01 Tell me about it 00:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

the article does not appear to be completely logical in this. however i think it is pretty simple. eliptical galaxys as well as 'bulges' are the result of mergers, and in cases possibly near mergers (misses etc., orbits), of black holes, a black hole of a great size that has a big starforming activity needs more mergers or mergers with bigger other black holes to loose all shape. a way to check this would be if we could find some remnants of arms about what then probably not be the biggest (those might well be wider then the original arms) elipticals. that if spirals in bulges, including elipticals as i suspect allthough not explicit in the article, are not enough proof. it is an interesting phenomenon, actually i assume there are no galaxys without a black hole, though it might be that a few 'lost' the major one, i would expect such to relatively quickly dissiminate or merge, later on, relatively speaking62.163.248.127 (talk) 23:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Do bulges evaporate the way Globular clusters do?[edit]

Do bulges evaporate the way Globular clusters do? Just granpa (talk) 01:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Box- and peanut-shaped bulges[edit]

Can someone mention where these bulges fall in the two types of bulges that are mentioned at the moment? Hobbema (talk) 07:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)