Talk:New General Catalogue

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Astronomy (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon New General Catalogue is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


I've only a passing interest in astronomy, but I've never heard of NGC having any specific connection to amateur astronomy - I was under the impression that the NGC (and IC) designations were the standard designations used for those objects by professionals and amateurs alike.

I propose to remove the word amateur from the first para unless someone steps in and tells me I'm wrong within the next week or so. Roy Badami (talk) 22:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I am not a professional astronomer, but I have seen quite many references to NGC objects in professional-level publications, and it would make perfect sense indeed to remove the word "amateur" from the first paragraph of the article.
CielProfond (talk) 00:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Done Roy Badami (talk) 18:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

Headbomb merged these here on 27 April 2012
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Index Catalogue to merge here[edit]

{{mergefrom|Index Catalogue|discuss=Talk:New General Catalogue#Merger proposal|date=December 2010}}

I propose that the article Index Catalogue be merged into this one. The IC is a catalogue of nebulous objects that was added to the NGC later, so clearly the two belong together. It makes no sense to me to make readers flick between two pages on the same topic. Currently Index Catalogue is a poorly sourced stub. Reyk YO! 01:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Support as nominator. Reyk YO! 01:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support, as I agree with the reasoning of the nominator. James McBride (talk) 03:07, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment don't forget to also merge Revised New General Catalogue here. (talk) 06:14, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Disagree, as it is a different work, albeit an expansion of the first one. It would be like merging into a single article all seven volumes of the Happy Potter collection. CielProfond (talk) 03:52, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I think a better comparison would be the seven Messier objects added to the original list, or insisting that the appendices to The Lord of the Rings be treated in a separate article. Reyk YO! 04:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
    • The IC's are supplemental volumes to the NGC . (talk) 22:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I know that, And I agree with you, Reyk, that the appendices to LotR should be treated in the same article. However, the IC were not published originally as part of the same document as the NGC (as the appendices were in LotR). And given the 7-year period between the NGC and the first IC (not to mention that the second IC is another 11 years later), it can hardly be considered as an immediate addition. Dreyer certainly went to much length in compiling each volume of the IC, just as he had previously done for the NGC. I believe it would be disrespectful towards Dreyer not to acknowledge his separate work for the IC as a separate article. I would almost make two articles, considering that there are two Index Catalogues, but common usage puts them both in the same bin, so who am I to argue?! ;-) However, I have never seen any work combining the NGC and the two ICs as a single document -- the closest to that merely lists the NGC and IC objects together, but the original publications of the NGC and the ICs never did that. CielProfond (talk) 00:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Britannica used to publish Data Annuals and Yearbooks, that were published later than the main edition. Science and Civilisation in China is a massive multivolume work that has different volumes published in different years. (talk) 23:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
        • OK, I guess my comparison was wrong. I don’t know what else to say to make my point across. I wish I would see more people participate in this debate, with any opinion… CielProfond (talk) 16:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Opposed as Ciel points out these are different works. It should be easy to navigate between them, which it seems to be to me, but I don't see an issue with readability. Perhaps an additional navigation item could be added to resolve the perceived issue? Either a hatnote or a navbox?
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 13:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support: IC is never considered in independence from NGC, it is always seen as an amendment onto NGC. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 08:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is like merging The Legendarium, The Hobbit, the Lord of the Rings, the Silmarllion, and The Children of Hurin into the Lord of the Rings.htom (talk) 04:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Revised New General Catalogue to merge here[edit]

{{mergefrom|Revised New General Catalogue|discuss=Talk:New General Catalogue#Merger proposal|date=December 2010}}

I suggest that Revised New General Catalogue also be merged here. (talk) 06:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't even know that existed. Good catch. Reyk YO! 08:23, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Disagree as it is a different work, albeit a revision of the NGC. Much more could be said about the work than what is currently in the article. Merging them would be akin to merging an article about a current world atlas with an article about the earliest recorded world map: they’re both maps of the world, the newer one a revision of the older one, but it could hardly be considered as the same thing. CielProfond (talk) 03:52, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
    • The revised catalogue is called the "NGC" or "New General Catalogue" in common usage. (talk) 22:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Merely because most people consider it to be the same work, but just corrected. Strictly speaking, one can not consider the RNGC and the NGC as the same work or as merely a correction of the NGC, as Sulentic and Tifft verified sources, photographs, etc., for most if not each object. Many/most/all descriptions were similarly revised. I’d rather consider the RNGC as a wholly new study of the same 7840 NGC objects and 5326 IC objects. CielProfond (talk) 00:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
        • The third edition of OED and the second edition of OED were also greatly revised. As are each major edition of Britannica. (talk) 23:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
          • Again, maybe my comparison was bad. But let’s see… NGC’s author was Dreyer. The RNGC’s authors were Sulentic and Tifft. I do not own a copy of the RNGC, but I am sure that there are a few introductory pages at the beginning. I do own a copy of NGC 2000.0 by Sinnott, and there are a few pages of his own at the beginning, explaining what he did — and briefly talking about Sulentic and Tifft’s RNGC. Also, there are some “additional” objects in the RNGC, that were not originally part of the NGC — objects with suffixes such as “A” or “B”, or even “N” (for North) and “S” (for South). So it’s not exactly the same work… As for the IC above, I wish I would see more opinions expressed. Both discussions involving me are the only discussions. One can figure out that the entries from others than me are in support of the merge, but if one were to count the votes themselves, there would actually only be mine… CielProfond (talk) 16:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  • "I wish I would see more opinions expressed."
  • Okay! AGREE (with the proposal. Disagree with you). ☺ Helvitica Bold 00:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helvitica Bold (talkcontribs)
  • Support: RNGC is just a revision of NGC, it doesn't contain more entries, just more info per entry of NGC. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 08:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


The article says it's based on updating and expanding the Catalogue of Nebulae of William Herschel. But isn't it an expansion and update of General Catalogue of Nebulae and Clusters by John Herschel ? (talk) 07:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Somehow, yes. However, Dreyer did more than merely add new objects and make a few corrections to Herschel’s objects. CielProfond (talk) 00:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


I have not made a change through lack of time, but the box copy on the organisation of the NGC is misleading. As the article says, it was surely compiled by Dreyer at the suggestion of the RAS at Dunsink, using data from Herschel and others, but it was not organised by William Herschel at the RAS's Dunsink Observatory, which is what is suggested. Herschel was long dead, and Dunsink was not an RAS observatory. Robin Scagell (talk) 10:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

2 questions about NGC objects[edit]

First question: How long will It take before all of the NGC objects are completed? Second question: How many NGC's articles have been completed?--Fucherastonmeym87 (talk) 01:29, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

@Fucherastonmeym87: Category:NGC objects will tell you pretty much what the status is. Currently 1,674 objects have articles or redirects. A few of them redirects to a list though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:34, 5 August 2017 (UTC)