Talk:List of nearest galaxies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Astronomy / Astronomical objects  (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon List of nearest 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.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-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  
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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

New objects to take into account[edit]

I just read an article notes that several new dwarfs have been found in the southern hemisphere in the vicinity of the LMC:

And here is another article which reports that even more galaxies have been found on the other side of the milky way:

If someone has the time to go to the original papers and get the data, then this list will need updating. I guess that I'll do it if i get some time.

alexander110 00:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

From the page, Andromeda's satellite galaxies, there is are 5 new satellites.

  • Andromeda XI
  • Andromeda XII
  • Andromeda XIII
  • Tidal Steam Northeast
  • Tidal Stream Southwest.

Thanks, Marasama (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


What does it mean that a galaxy is a satellite of another? Rmhermen 15:05, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

it orbits it like a satellite Alexander110 (talk) 05:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge to Local Group[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
  • OPPOSE a list is useful by itself, and would clutter the Local Group article. And not everything on the list need be a Local Group member132.205.45.110 22:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    • But there are all already listed on the Local Group page - why duplicate the lists? -- ALoan (Talk) 22:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
      • The list of nearest galaxies does serve a purpose and unless it can be merged without clutter to the Local Group article I'd say leave it seperated.--Kalsermar 01:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Only reason to keep this article is to considerably expand the list to include galaxies outside the Local group. Or, alternatively rename List of nearest galaxies to List of Local group galaxies.--Jyril 13:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Currently this list include only name, distance, and notes. Diameter and type should also be included, maybe other information too. In that case, there's no reason for merge anymore.--Jyril 08:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I suppose it is currently "list of Local Group galaxies by distance" -- ALoan (Talk) 14:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with ALoan DaMatriX 19:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I have added galaxies out to the fringes of the Local Group (and a few beyond). Ardric47 05:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The gravitationally bound system of the Milky Way and its satellite galaxies is a separate subject from determining the distances to nearby galaxies. (Also note that the list of nearest galaxies should probably be revised partly using the distance measurements by Karachentsev et al. I was considering doing this after I finished work on the list of NGC objects.) Dr. Submillimeter 07:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

In its current state I see no reason that this should be merged with the Milky Way satellite article unless also merged with the Andromeda Galaxy satellite article. It appears that the debate ceased long ago any way so I suggest that the tag be removed. FrunkSpace (talk) 11:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


I'm going to use distances from SEDS at [1] instead of the unsourced ones here unless an explanation or source is available in the individual article. I will preserve old values in comments; they can be reinstated if better information is found. Ardric47 02:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Please do not use data from SEDS. With a few exceptions, SEDS does not reference its sources of information. Their data appear to be highly inaccurate and misleading. George J. Bendo 17:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

It doesn't seem to me that there's any reason to merge this, but I'm not sure what the procedure is for taking down the template. Also, how long should this list get? The nearest 100 galaxies? The nearest 200? Out to a certain distance? Ardric47 05:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

What's the difference how long this gets? If someone wants to keep adding more items, let him. Nobody has to read it. B00P 05:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I truncated the list to 100. The list should be readable and should be a sane length. At greater distances, it is likely to be incomplete. It also becomes inane if it is too long, as many galaxies will be listed at the same distance. Moreover, who is interested in which galaxy is the 157th closest? George J. Bendo 07:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
George J. Bendo has performed the valuable service of removing information from Wikipedia because he, personally, isn't interested, and therefore feels that no one else should be either. That someone else went to the trouble of gathering it in the first place was of no consequence. I'm sure that he'll be delighted when I cut the list to the closest five because who is interested in which galaxy is the 7th closest? B00P 17:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I had no idea that layout and post complaints here, I'll revert it myself. B00P 21:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
This list can actually get as long as it needs to be and still be readable. All it needs is some organization, which may be hard to do in tabular format. I'm seeing galaxies from different clusters within the Local Group and others outside the Local Group. One suggestion I'd like to make is to go to a more classifying format. List the groups, then any clusters within them that have listed galaxies. If a galaxy is known to have system, list its known satellites under it. Maybe indent by a column for each level, provide table of contents to allow users to jump through the list and of course with each entry list all the current fields. Plynch22 01:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
That proposal is actually very messy in practice. Some nearby galaxy groups are actually only very weakly gravitationally bound (see the Sculptor Group, for example). Moreover, some galaxies do not appear to be gravitationally bound to any nearby groups. (Also, Plynch22 misused the word "cluster". Please check the use of the term and use it more carefully.)
I was thinking about revising the article using the data from the Karachentsev papers myself. I also wanted to add columns for right ascension, declination, redshift, and morphological type. Dr. Submillimeter 08:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

LMC and SMC not satellites?[edit]

i recently read in this New Scientist article that the magellanic clouds may not be satellites, because they are moving too quickly. perhaps the comments in the list should reflect this? Mlm42 09:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

After years of research, Karachentsev (2005) indicated that the LMC and SMC are gravitationally bound. The results in the New Scientist article are newer, but the reference is not a peer-reviewd journal aritcle. A corresponding peer-reviewed journal article should be found for this information. Moreover, even if this has been published, it should still be confirmed. From my experience, some of these assessments about the dynamics of objects near the Milky Way can be quite tricky. Ultimately, the discussion would be so lengthy that it could take up too much space. (Writing Wikipedia articles by press release generally does not work well.) Dr. Submillimeter 09:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
but shouldn't the articles somehow reflect the fact that it isn't proven that they are satellite galaxies? if the assessments of the dynamics are tricky, that tells me that claims regarding when things are or aren't gravitationally bound are probably more conjecture-with-some-evidence than generally-accepted-fact.. i don't know much about it, but i would prefer not to have the wool pulled over my eyes! :) Mlm42 15:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
This is beyond the scope of this list. I suggest discussing the topic at Large Magellanic Cloud and Small Magellanic Cloud. Remove the reference to the LMC and SMC as "satellite galaxies" if it really bothers you (although they probably are satellite galaxies). Dr. Submillimeter 07:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Milky Way Galaxy[edit]

Would it not be correct that the Milky Way Galaxy is a satellite of the Milky Way? If yes then I suggest that said information is added to the notes like all the other Milky Way dwarfs. FrunkSpace (talk) 10:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Milky Way = Milky Way Galaxy = our galaxy. The same thing cannot be the satellite itself. — Chesnok (talk) 19:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

mergefrom Milky Way's satellite galaxies[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was keep separate from Milky Way's satellite galaxies. -- Debate 09:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Rather than merging here, it would do better as a table within the "Environment" section of the Milky Way article itself. If not that, then leave it alone. B00P (talk) 23:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

overhaul & rationale for length of list[edit]

I have overhauled this list to include more data (such as galaxy type & magnitude) and include some better references. Still need to fill it all in but have done the first 30 or so where data is available. I'm working to a 5mpc limit as that includes a few significant nearby galaxies outside the local group - eg centaurus A. It is also what Karachentsev used for his catalogue of galaxies (see reflist) - itself based I think on what is the distance limit of measurements that can be made with reasonable accuracy. I've reworked the referencing list and system quite a bit actually. Welcome to all suggestions & comments. Alexander110 (talk) 07:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I did the previous overhaul (November 2006), so it's my table you're changing. (Dramatic pause.) Fine, go ahead, and have fun finding the photos.
I do have a suggestion, Personally, I think that the numbering scheme (eg: "47" followed by two "=47"s) is kind of ugly. Instead of "=47" try something like or or instead.
By the way, I always thought it would be nice to have a column listing date-of-discovery. Obviously I didn't do it myself, but if you're a glutton for work ...
Anyway, good luck with it. B00P (talk) 20:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! hope you like the result so far.. not all the galaxies have photos that i've been able to find, but what photos there are do sparkle up the list i think. Was inspired by the list of spiral galaxies and list of nearest stars. There is still lots more work to do - plenty of galaxies missing outside the local group for a start. I'm also thinking now that a 5mpc limit is perhaps a bit ambitious. As for the numbering of the list - it is a bit shoddy and i have stopped it after about 60 for now. Use of something other than = sign is a good idea, and i think the discovery date would be useful - it would make the point that some of the closest galaxies are the most recently found. I've worked on the referencing but there is still more to do there as well. Alexander110 (talk) 06:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I've just added about 25 new galaxies within 3.6mpc to the list and clipped the end of the list off. It should be complete (on 2004 data) to this point. Still more to do - some of the older distance references probably need updating which will change the order again. Below is the bit I chopped off. Alexander110 (talk) 16:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

#   Galaxy Type Dist from Earth Magnitude Group
Mly Mpc M m
KDG 61 11.74 [1] 3.60 M81 group
60px M81 11.84 [1] 3.63 M81 group
UGC 5442 (KDG 64) 12.07 [1] 3.70 M81 group
KDG 73 12.07 [1] 3.70 M81 group
NGC 5102 12.10 [2] 3.71 M83 Group
DDO 78 12.13 [1] 3.72 M81 group
F8D1 12.30 [1] 3.77 M81 group
BK5N 12.33 [1] 3.78 M81 group
KKH 6 Ir 12.39 3.8[3] 17.0[3]
NGC 3077 12.46 [1] 3.82 M81 group
Holmberg I (DDO 63, UGC 5139) 12.52 [1] 3.84 M81 group
BK6N 12.56 [1] 3.85 M81 group
NGC 7793 12.80 [4] 3.92 Sculptor group
Camelopardalis A (Cam A) Irr (LSB)[5] 12.82 3.93[3] 14.84[3] -14.06[3]
KKH57 12.82 [1] 3.93 M81 group
Ngc253 2mass barred spiral.jpg Sculptor Galaxy (NGC 253) 12.90 [4] 3.96 Sculptor group
UGC 6541 12.92 [1] 3.96
DDO 82 (UGC 5692) 13.05 [1] 4.0 M81 group
BK3N 13.11 [1] 4.02 M81 group
IC 2574 (DDO 81) 13.11 [1] 4.02 M81 group
NGC 247 13.30 [4] 4.07 Sculptor group
Sculptor Dwarf Irregular Galaxy 13.40 [4] 4.11 Sculptor group
UGC 7298 13.60 [1] 4.17
Sc 22 13.70 [4] 4.2 Sculptor group
60px Centaurus A 13.70 [6] 4.2 Centaurus A Group
ESO 471-06 (UGCA 442) 13.90 [4] 4.26 Sculptor group
UGC 7242 14.00 [1] 4.29 M81 group?
ESO 245-005 14.40 [4] 4.42 Sculptor group
UGC 6456 14.45 [1] 4.43 M81 group?
NGC 4236 14.51 [1] 4.45 M81 group?
NGC 5204 14.51 [1] 4.45
Messier object 083.jpg M83 14.70 [7] 4.51 M83 Group
DDO 165 (UGC 8201) 14.91 [1] 4.57 M81 group?

Rationale for list end[edit]

I stopped just before 3.6 Mpc as Karachentsev 2004 lists about a dozen at this distance and many more between 4-5Mpc. 3.6 mpc takes in the nearer members of nearby groups - a selection from the sculptor, M81 group, M94 group, Centaurus A and Maffei groups. I have used the distance of NGC 4945 as the line in the sand. If we made the cut off nearer than this, the list would become dominated by local group members - and so less interesting in my opinion (and duplicating the list at Local group. It could be further out than this but the length would increase very rapidly.. of course if someone wants to do the work then go right ahead...alexander110 03:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Leo T & Virgo Stellar Stream[edit]

another galaxy to add, Leo T [2] (talk) 08:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I have added this to the list and removed Virgo Stellar Stream as it seems there are now a matrix of stellar streams being discovered around our galaxy (see ) and it's probably debatable whether they can be classed as galaxies in their own right.Alexander110 (talk) 04:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
here is the removed entry:
  3 Virgo Stellar Stream dSph
0.030[8] 0.009  ?  ? Local Group In process of merging with Milky Way

definition of galaxy?[edit]

Recently discovered local group galaxies may be added. More complete lists of local group galaxies can be found here:

Also in this file there is p. 9 an updated list of MW satellites, and p.11 an updated list of Andromeda satellites.

But a question troubles me : why list very faint dwarf satellite galaxies such as Boötes Dwarf, with apparent magnitude 13,1 and absolute magnitude -5,8 at 197 kly from here, and not much brighter globular clusters such as NGC 2419 at 275 kly from here, that, depending on sources, is said to be of apparent magnitude 9 or 10,4, and absolute magnitude -9,5 or -11 (I can't tell which is true) ? Indeed the difference between a small galaxy and a big globular cluster may not be always clear.

Also, some updates on distances would be needed. But it seems sometimes hard to find good and recent references. For example, for NGC 147, the distance in this list differs from the one presented in its own article, which has its own reasons based on averaging of references. It seems hard to decide which option is best, however it looks weird to keep both as such, as they are supposed to answer the same question. (I'll do a few other modifs myself later). --Spoirier (talk) 01:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

i suppose it would open a can of worms to start including globular clusters in this list even though they may indeed be brighter than the sorts of dwarf galaxies that are showing up in great numbers near to the milky way. I propose that unless something has 'galaxy' in its name it shouldn't be on this list -- the people who sort out naming conventions can then have the argument over what qualifies. i also propose that in order to combat this list becoming bloated with faint dwarfs which are no doubt going to continue to be found in vast quantities there could be some absolute magnitude cut-off point to qualify inclusion, somewhere between -10 M (which would exclude a lot of currently listed dwarfs) or -5 M (which would only exclude the faintest of dwarfs). A decision should be made before someone goes to the effort of adding all the newly discovered tiny dwarfs to this list (although do we even have M for these?).
as for distances, when i was updating this list last year i relied heavily on the distances published in recent papers on local groups by Karachentsev et al -- thanks spoirier for updating these based on new hubble measurements etc (although the numbering needs fixing now). If someone has felt the need to do a more sophisticated calculation already on the distance over on the individual galaxy page, and it is accepted there, it should be used here too for consistency -- and vice versa. Someone just needs to go about and cross reference everything.
oh and i've let UGC 8638 (VV 133) drop off the list now as the new distance is about a trillion bizillion miles further than before. .
Alexander110 (talk) 02:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Something that has galaxy in its name? That's highly unreasonable, since only the Milky Way Galaxy has "Galaxy" in its name. Everything else is a catalog designation, like M31 or M33. Even if you're referring to article names, one would hardly think that the Magellanic Clouds should be missing from the list.
This is a list of nearest galaxies, a magnitude cut-off is also unreasonable. If that were the case, many LSB galaxies have brighter magnitudes than high surface brightness galaxies, but are harder to see, so that defeats the purpose of using magnitude as a cut-off if you're about visual appearance. And many notable nearby galaxies aren't bright, like the dimmest dwarf known, or the lowest surface brightness galaxy, or candidate dark galaxies, or the dwarf spheroidals with the highest known ratio of dark matter to normal matter...
Currently, the list is distance limited, which is a reasonable way to define "nearest", another way, somewhat more arbitrary is a numerical count cut-off, like "1000 nearest galaxies" would be a reasonable sized list, and though 1000 is arbitrary, it is a highly used limit, so is a normal limit.
This article isn't all that big in the first place, I see no need to start reducing it at this time. Many lists on Wikipedia are much much larger.
I will note that we have a list of nearest bright stars, an equivalent list for Alexander110's concerns would work fine. (talk) 07:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I guess i was thinking that 'galaxy' might have some naming convention like 'planet' - but apparently not. The list of galaxies has this to say: "There is no universal naming convention for galaxies, as they are mostly catalogued before it is established whether the object is or isn't a galaxy. Mostly they are identified by their celestial coordinates together with the name of the observing project (HUDF, SDSS, 3C, CFHQS, NGC/IC, etc.)". alexander110
Globular clusters and what not should not be on the list, this is a list of galaxies, not a list of whatever it may be. That sounds like a list of extragalactic deep sky targets for amateur astronomy, which is not what this list is meant to be. If you want globulars, then look at the List of globular clusters. If it's not classified as a galaxy, it definitely should not be on a list of galaxies. (proviso given to "candidate galaxies" like Omega Centauri that may be the hearts of dwarf galaxies, and not globulars.) If you want a list like that, you should make a new list. (talk) 07:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Incongruous data[edit]

The article claims that Leo A (Leo III, DDO 69) is a satellite of the Milkyway. It also claims that Leo A (Leo III, DDO 69) is further away than most Andromeda and most of it's satellite galaxies. This data is incongruous. No, I'm not making the claim that Leo A would be a satellite of Andromeda, it's obviously not in even in the vicinity of Andromeda. Andromeda is in the Andromeda constellation hence it's name. Leo A is likewise in the Leo constellation. But it still doesn't make much sense that Milkyway can have a satellite further out than the nearest non-satellite galaxy. That would be like saying that the sun has a red dwarf companion that's further out than the nearest main sequence star. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Line numbers[edit]

Somebody has quite totally messed the line numbers, or perhaps the distances have changed? Mostly the galaxies are in right order except the NGC 404 at 9.98 Mly, which should be about ten places higher. I assume the "—" means it has the same rank as above galaxy. Well then for example rank 30 and two below marked "—", all of those have different distancies shown (2.5, 2.51 and 2.52). And what in earth has happened around 51-61? The order is 51, 53, —, 52, 57, —, 59, 60, 61 and 58, then a 58 few rows below, and another 58 maybe 20 rows below??? And what the stars at two rows mean? Shouldn't they also have a ranking since they are on the list? I don't have any experience with tables, so won't mess those more. (talk) 04:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Rank of Large Magellanic Cloud[edit]

Why the LMC has no rank? Maybe Canis Major Dwarf should not have a rank, because its status as a galaxy is disputed, LMC's is not. (talk) 17:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

And I just noticed even Andromeda Galaxy does not have a rank. The list is not very good. If I counted right, there 128 entries. Of those, 96 have a rank and 26 have a dash (–).
What is the point of being on the list, if no rank is given? At least an explanation is required. (talk) 15:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
The numbering keeps getting all mussed up because every time a new galaxy is discovered and added to the list, the whole list from there down needs to be renumbered. I wish there was some automated option. Please feel free to correct the numbering, there is nothing spooky about it, it just takes a little time. alexander110 02:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Ursa Minor Dwarf.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Ursa Minor Dwarf.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


Someone might be confused by Mly linking to Light year article and not realize that it means million light years.. I thing that this should be made more clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of nearest 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) 11:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u Cite error: The named reference Karachentsev2002 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Based on calculations made on the page NGC 5102
  3. ^ a b c d e Cite error: The named reference Karachentsev2004 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ a b c d e f g Cite error: The named reference Karachentsev2003 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference NASAIPAC was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ J. L. Tonry, 2001The SBF Survey of Galaxy Distances. IV. SBF Magnitudes, Colors, and Distances
  7. ^ Cite error: The named reference Karachentsev2002b was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. ^ astro-ph/0510589