Talk:Messier 81

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Messier 81 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Name Discussion

I'm not sure that I agree with a name change to "Bode's Galaxy". It is far better known as simply M81. -- Curps 22:15, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps, but "M81" is a boring classification number. I think as it has a name we should try to put a face to it instead of it being just another one of the countless M-- galaxies... Just as we have the Comet Hale-Bopp under "Comet Hale-Bopp" instead of "C/1995 O1"... blankfaze | •• | •• 22:24, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Comet Hale-Bopp is actually best known under the name "Hale-Bopp". And "M81" is best known as "M81". I don't think I ever heard of "Bode's Galaxy" before today. -- Curps 00:09, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad to have educated you, then. blankfaze | •• | •• 01:23, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think it's the entire world you'd need to "educate", if Google is any indication. Usually, things on Wikipedia should be referred to by their most commonly used name. But anyway, carry on, for now. -- Curps 03:26, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I had certainly never heard of M81 being known as Bode's Galaxy before. Google gives 10 times as many hits for "M81 galaxy" as it does for "Bode's Galaxy". The normal convention is for article to be located at their most commonly used name, so I'd suggest this article be moved. Of course, alternative names should be mentioned in the text but having the article located at Bode's Galaxy doesn't make much sense to me. Worldtraveller 12:59, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

All scientific papers that I've read have called it M81. It makes no sense to "put a face to it" as there are countless galaxies and it would be overly difficult to refer to each one as a different name. I say change it back to M81. (Dear DairyPirate - please sign your contributions; thanks Robma 10:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

While Bode's Galaxy certainly appears to be a neologism, it is one pre-dating its appearance in Wikipedia, with a few professional sites - notably NOAO and Rose-Hulman observatory citing it under this name [1]. That said, I agree that it would perhaps be preferable to note this name under a principal entry of M81. Shall we leave this for (say) a month for comment and then decide? Robma 10:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to say that most professional astronomers refer to this as M81 and that I agree that it should be renamed. (I also think M82 should be listed under "M82" and not the "Cigar Galaxy".)

Naked-eye visibility

I have amended the entry to address the issue of naked-eye visibility with a cited ref, as the denouement of the recent amendments dealing with this issue Robma 18:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Bode's Galaxy → Messier 81 – This galaxy is best known by both professional and amateur astronomers as "Messier 81" or "M81". "Bode's Galaxy" is simply too unfamiliar to use for this article's title. GeorgeJBendo 14:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Support for reasons given above. GeorgeJBendo 14:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Support - All Messier object articles should have the same naming convention --Exodio 14:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per GJB. Chaos syndrome 16:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per my comment on M82/Cigar Galaxy Survey. --Kalsermar 17:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per my comments on this page, above. Robma 19:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - "Bode's Galaxy" should be mentioned in the article, but the most common name of NGC 3031 is M81. --Fournax 20:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support because it's the most common name. --Bowlhover 23:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

OK, this survey's been running for a month and a half now. We unanimously voted to move it, so I'm glad that someone did the moving. --Bowlhover 00:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this discussion was closed. Well, no one protested the move. GeorgeJBendo 08:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Brightness Discussion

Dr. Submillimeter According to the SEEDS (http://www.seds.org/messier/m/m081.html) the visual magnitude of the M81 is 6.9 not 7.9 as you stated. This is also in excellent agreement with visual observations made by naked eye (under expectational conditions), binocular and telescope. Cheers Vedran (http://www.inet.hr/vevrhova/english)

The SEDS website is unreliable. According to the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database entry on Messier 81, which is used by professional astronomers, the apparent magnitude is 7.9. Please do not use the SEDS website as a reference. Please use the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database instead. Dr. Submillimeter 10:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database entry on Messier 81 is giving blue or photographical magnitudes, not visual. That is the main problem here. It states visual magnitude not blue magnitude.

NED data for M81, Blue magnitude

NED data for M81, Visual magnitude

Note the difference. Blue magnitude is taken at wavelength of 4400A° (440nm) and visual is taken at 5530A° (553nm). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vedran8080 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

That was much smarter than relying on the SEDS website. Because the magnitude comes specifically from the Third Reference Catalogue by de Vaucouleurs et al., I have cited the catalog instead of NED in the infobox. Dr. Submillimeter 15:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2009 re-challenge

The article still shows the v-mag as 7.89. According to SIMBAD the correct v mag is 6.94. -- Kheider (talk) 10:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both figures are easy to trace to a source paper as well. It would also seem to me that in several situations, at least with brighter objects, a visual magnitude would be more useful, as opposed to a photographic mag. That being said, it should be something that possibly should go under consideration for stndardization sometime, as there is no trend that I can detect. The M33 article references Vmag, M31 an approximate Bmag, for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.235.35.162 (talk) 14:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the less proper Bmag (photographic) 7.89 to Vmag (visual) 6.94 as the infobox requests. -- Kheider (talk) 20:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the paper mentioned above is a good source. Ruslik_Zero 10:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have now also updated:Andromeda Galaxy (M31) @ 3.44, Centaurus A @ 6.84, M83 @ 7.54, M101 @ 7.86, NGC 55 @ 7.87, M32 @ 8.08, and M82 @ 8.41. -- Kheider (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of M81 in fiction section

I removed the "M81 in fiction" section because, while it seemed to describe the Star Trek universe, it actually referred to a role-playing game based on Star Trek. This just did not seem notable enough to include in this article. The text is below:

In the fictional Star Fleet Universe, M81 is the home galaxy for a number of star-faring races, including the Tholians and Seltorians (who arrive in the Alpha Octant of the Milky Way in the SFU timeline)^[1] and the Bolosco (who establish themselves in the adjacent Omega Octant).^[2]

Please discuss here if it should be added back into the article. Dr. Submillimeter 08:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I should note that the Star Fleet Universe is more than just another Trek derivation - but how and ever: I've put the aforementioned reference in the Galaxies in Fiction page, which is linked to in my latest edit of the M81 article. I hope that suffices. --Nerroth 20:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ G. Plana (2005). GURPS Prime Directive (4th Edition ed.). Amarillo: Amarillo Design Bureau, Inc. pp. 48 (Tholian data), 53-54 (Seltorian data). ISBN 1-58564-047-6. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)
^ Star Fleet Battles Omega Master Rulebook. Amarillo: Amarillo Design Bureau, Inc. 2007.

Extra images which are not really needed

This page is accumulating a lot of images that really are not needed for the discussion, so I am placing them here for the time being. I am not going to bother extending the descriptions of the visible light and Spitzer images unless they are really needed. Dr. Submillimeter 10:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ssc2003-06d2.jpg

Visible light

File:Ssc2003-06d5.jpg

3.6 microns

File:Ssc2003-06d3.jpg

24 microns

File:Ssc2003-06d4.jpg

8.0 microns

Here's the same picture as the one on the page, but with higher resolution:

http://www.spacetelescope.org/images/publicationjpg/heic0710a.jpg --The monkeyhate 18:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SN 1993J

I started an article on SN 1993J and copied the information from this page to it, adding something on light echos. I'll leave it up to editors here to decide if the section in this article on the supernova should be trimmed.--agr (talk) 13:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Galaxy: Exploring the milky way

Galaxy: Exploring the milky way says the size is 70000 LY. Should i put this in? Mocha2007 (talk) 18:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Messier 81 HST.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Messier 81 HST.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on March 30, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-03-30. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! —howcheng {chat} 16:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the day

Messier 81, also known as NGC 3031 or Bode's Galaxy, is a spiral galaxy about 12 million light-years from Earth in the constellation Ursa Major. Due to its relative proximity, large size and active galactic nucleus, Messier 81 has been studied extensively by professional astronomers. Its relatively high brightness also makes it a popular target for amateur astronomers.Photo: NASA, ESA, STScI/AURA

Archive – More featured pictures...

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Messier 81. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a Distance ref.?

Article states a distance of 11.7 MLY but never gives a reference, nor even any indication what technique produces this estimate. FWIW the Schmidt paper on SN 1993 mentions an estimate derived from Cepheids, likely a good choice, though I do not know their ref. for that.

Anybody have a ref.? Jmacwiki (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]