Talk:List of galaxies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Astronomy / Astronomical objects  (Rated List-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon List of galaxies is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
 List  This article has been rated as List-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.
WikiProject Lists (Rated List-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Correction of absolute magnitude[edit]

Almost all of the galaxies lised on this page have a minor error in the info template on the right in their article pages. The error is a false figure given for the absolute magnitude of the galaxy.

For example, for M51 the figure given for abs. mag. was 12.7 while the true abs. magn. is -21.5

However, 12.7 is roughly M51's surface brightness, so I assume the editor unwittingly picked the wrong value. Nevertheless, almost all of the galaxies listed here have to be updated. How to calculate the abs mag see the article. Albester 20:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

All of the galaxies??[edit]

Does this list include only major galaxies or does it include all of the galaxies known? I was kind of expecting more...

  • I too was wondering this. How complete is this list?--SeizureDog 02:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Someone vandalized it a few weeks ago, and the person who cleaned it up unfortunately was not careful, and stripped out the lines that had been altered instead of restoring them. --dreish~talk 20:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
The list primarily contains well known and well studied galaxies, nothing more, nothing less Albester 13:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I do not see every "well-known or well-studied" galaxy on this list. This list is simply poorly maintained.GeorgeJBendo 17:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree, I may try tackling this list once I am finished with List of Spiral Galaxies. Imaninjapiratetalk to me 09:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

old list[edit]

old list

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Please help integrate the old list into the new tabular format, so that the old list can be removed from the article. (talk) 08:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Guys! there are 200,000,000,000 galaxies as of 1/1/2010! There are hundreds of galaxies discovered every day! How could we possibly fit ALL the galaxies in such an article!? --Nate5713 (talk) 00:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I would like to see a new list of binocular range galaxies that can be seen with 20x or 25x binoculars. The list should include magnitude and distance. Sorted by magnitude. This would be an extension of the galaxies that can be seen with the eye.Maxeng (talk) 13:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for removal from the list[edit]

Can I remove from the list NGC 2 and NGC 3 since the information about these galaxies is deficient. -Pika ten10 (talk) 06:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

excised table[edit]

10 Furthest Galaxies
Rank Galaxy Distance Notes
  • z>6 galaxies are used to explore the reionization era
  • z represents redshift, a measure of recessional velocity and inferred distance due to cosmological expansion
  • quasars and other AGN are not included on this list, since they are only galactic cores, unless the host galaxy has been observed


I removed this table, because it's too hard to confirm the disparate announcements, retractions, and counterclaims on these most distant galaxies... (talk) 08:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

highest z - circa 1957[edit]

[1] cluster 1448 z=0.4 V=120,000km/s ... anyone know about this? (talk) 07:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

[2] 1958 Baum - z=0.29 & z=0.35 ; z=0.44 for another galaxy in 3C 295's cluster (Cl 1409+524)? (talk) 10:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

articles should be created[edit]

The 1956, 1936 and 1925 galaxy redshift catalogs should probably each have a wikipedia article of their own. (talk) 08:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

to be removed[edit]

The first section "List" should be removed when everything is integrated into the new tabular form below it. (talk) 11:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Baby Boom Galaxy[edit]

exactly what record does the Baby Boom Galaxy hold? user:Fatal!ty put it into the most distant galaxy table (which is wrong, since it has never been the most distant, and was not discovered in 1980, where he put it into the table). I've removed it from the wrong table. It is now grouped with several others as the currently most distant by type. The article page says it's the brightest starburst galaxy in the very distant universe. This claim makes several exceptions possible, implying that it is *not* the brightest starburst galaxy anywhere in the universe, and that it is *not* the brightest galaxy in the very distant universe, and it is *not* the most distant starburst galaxy... so it doesn't seem to be any kind of record breaker, except in combination. (talk) 11:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

excised unsourced speculations[edit]

It is taken from the Sanskrit term "Akash Ganga", the term coined 3500 years before the western world even knew what it was. Ganga is a holy Indian river (i.e. Ganges). Akash Ganga Means Milk River in the Sky

This "sanskrit origin" is not attested to in the external link. Since "Milky Way" has nothing to do with "river" it is highly dubious that that is the source of the saying, or that it is 3500 years old as stated, since no supporting material is provided. (talk) 10:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

This POV speculation of origin is not on the Milky Way article page. (talk) 10:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


HUDF-JD2 2005 z=6.5 The most distant galaxy found in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field image.[2]

I have removed this entry because (1) it was not the most distant galaxy, it was only the most distant in the HUDF image. (2) it was placed in the 1990's when it was discovered in 2005 according to the entry on the table, so it's in the wrong place. (3) HCM-6A, discovered in 2002 was already much further away at 6.56, so JD2 would not possibly be the most distant. (talk) 06:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The most massive[edit]

It says that Messier 87 is the most massive but in it's article it says that it's "only" 200 times more massive than the Milky Way whereas the IC 1101 in it's own article is 2000 more massive than the Milky Way. I think it should be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Where does it say it's 2000 times more massive? There's no mass listed at IC 1101 at all. All it says is that the cluster in which IC 1101 resides is 100trillion solar masses, which is not the galaxy itself. (talk) 10:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It's in the IC 1101 article. It's like: "Being more than 50 times the size of the Milky Way and 2000 times as massive." It's right after they mention the 100 trillion solar masses. If you go there you'll see it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Needing a carefull revision[edit]

I had never read so much nonsense. I could make some corrections, but it contains so many mistakes that I simply gave up reading. I mean, someone could make this a little bit more reliable just by following the links to the main articles about each celestial object and subject - as simple as that! (talk) 03:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Care to give some specific examples of things that should be fixed? - Parejkoj (talk) 06:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Silly nicknames[edit]

I would encourage future editors to avoid all these silly nicknames like "Cartwheel Galaxy" and "Blue Waffle" and all this other nonsense. Nobody uses these names. Please use the Messier or NGC numbers instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Why? Cartwheel Galaxy is widely used and is the name of our article. Further, very few galaxies have Messier or NGC numbers, so we couldn't even list most of the galaxies on this page with that restriction. Your own example, of the Cartwheel Galaxy has no NGC number or Messier number. Indeed, this would be impossible, since it was discovered in 1941, long after Charles Messier died, and after JLE Dreyer completed the NGC. -- (talk) 15:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Omega Centauri as a Galaxy[edit]

Under the Naked-Eye Galaxies, the globular cluster Omega Centauri is listed with the note that a black hole was found in its core in 2010. However, while a popular idea, this is far from settled. Even the cited source ( admits that recent studies have drawn different conclusions on the existence of a central black hole. I recently completed a literature review on the galactic status of Omega Centauri as a major university project, and there is no shortage of papers proposing evidence for both sides of the argument, even in the years after the cited source of 2010. eg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachariasj (talkcontribs) 07:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Distinction between spectroscopic and photometric redshifts[edit]

This article (and others) fails to distinguish between spectroscopic redshifts (which are generally precise and usually reliable) and photometric redshifts (which generally have larger error ranges, and more prone to being wrong). In terms of the most distant galaxies, it would be more conventional to quote the former as being secure, and the latter as providing "candidate" distant sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Bode's Galaxy - apparent magnitude[edit]

Why does this article says Bode's Galaxy (Messier 81) have an apparent magnitude of 7.89 when its own article says 6.94, which agrees with SEDS? (talk) 00:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Removed Largest Galaxies section[edit]

IC 1101 is not 5 MLy in size. See Talk:IC_1101 for details. I've removed the "Galaxies by Size" section. It can be restored if someone wants to actually do the required ADS research to make it valid. - Parejkoj (talk) 00:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Added wikilink to above, per WP:RTP, to clarify initialism. — DennisDallas (talk) 03:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


In the section "Galaxies with some other notable feature", it is said of M102 that "This galaxy cannot be definitively identified, with the most likely candidate being NGC 5866, and a good chance of it being a misidentification of M101. Other candidates have also been suggested." However, it is known that it was a duplicate observation of M101 (see for example the book Messierin kohteet by Ursa; this reads certainly in many other books also), so it seems a bit strange with saying that NGC 5866 being the most likely candidate. K9re11 (talk) 10:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Correction of Galaxy Zoo figures.[edit]

Galaxy Zoo has not catalogued 50 million galaxies. It has classified over one million images, as one can read from the following links. Tens of millions of classifications have been made of those million galaxy images, as one can read in the lengthy and much edited Wikipedia Galaxy Zoo article. A Galaxy Zoo paper from 2014 explains in section 2.2:

Galaxy Zoo: CANDELS barred discs and bar fractions (full ref in article) page 2 of 9, or page 3467 in MNRAS journal.

Quote: "Galaxy Zoo provides quantified visual morphologies by obtaining multiple independent classifications for each galaxy. Beginning in 2007, more than 1,000,000 galaxy images in total from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and the HST have each been classified by typically ∼40 independent volunteers via a web interface."

"This work uses classifications collected during the fourth release of Galaxy Zoo, specifically of 49,555 images from the COSMOS, GOODS-South, and UDS fields in the CANDELS survey (hereafter GZ-CANDELS)."

That is why I'm changing it as the sentence at the moment is erroneous. It is also unreferenced.Richard Nowell (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)



External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of galaxies. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:55, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ Confirmed High Redshift (z > 5.5) Galaxies - (Last Updated 10th February 2005)
  2. ^ Panagia, N (2010). "The best of HST". Memorie della Società Astronomica Italiana. 81: 49. Bibcode:2010MmSAI..81...49P.