Talk:List of open clusters

	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.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Astronomy Low‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Table Layout[edit]

Since the clusters are sorted by distance, should this be in the second column (after the cluster name)? KingMunch (talk) 02:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for myself, I'm not particular about it, but in astronomy the coordinate information is usually presented first, followed by the other parameters. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sortable[edit]

I am not quite sure why the clusters are ordered by distance and not alphabetically -- suppose you are looking for a particular cluster, it's much more likely that you know its name than its distance, isn't it? -- but I made the table sortable, so the reader can just click on the name coloumn to order them alphabetically. Or they can order them by the other criteria.
RickV88 (talk) 15:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I didn't do the sort because it doesn't work properly for the coordinates column, but I suppose that's not a big concern. Sorting based on distance just seemed more interesting to me when I first set it up. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think the coordinates are sorted ok. It just sorts it by RA and not by Dec. But it's better than nothing. I am quite confused on why it doesn't sort it by constellation (the names are not in alphabetical order at all) or for age. Actually, for age we should change 4 figure (or more) numbers from 1,100 to 1100, say. But even with that, it doesn't sort it properly. Weird!
RickV88 (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like when you click on the Constellation column it is sorting by Dec. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't notice that. Well done! :)
RickV88 (talk) 20:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Some NGC clusters[edit]

We are missing NGC 103, 133, 136, 146, 366, 433, 436, 559, 609, 654, and 129 from this list and I don't know how to add things to lists Julianstout (talk) 21:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Diameter in arcmin?[edit]

Is the ' in the diameter column supposed to denote arcmin? Why is that the only column that doesn't have the units in the table header? --Yarnalgo _talk 23:40, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NGC2070 .... is that the cluster?[edit]

NGC2070 is usually described as the Tarantula Nebula, rather than the cluster it encloses. In the original NGC it is classed as "Cluster + Nebula", but Herschel's description makes it pretty clear he is talking about the nebula: "!!! vB, vL, looped" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:e422:3c01:8d99:693d:6417:6c48 (talk) 07:20, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]