Talk:Messier 81

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Astronomy Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to astronomy, and WikiProject Astronomical Objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
Help with this template This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents 1 Name Discussion 2 Naked-eye visibility 3 Requested move 3.1 Survey 3.2 Discussion 4 Brightness Discussion

[edit] 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))

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)

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".)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)
• Support per GJB. Chaos syndrome 16:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support as per my comment on M82/Cigar Galaxy Survey. --Kalsermar 17:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support as per my comments on this page, above. Robma 19:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
• Support because it's the most common name. --Bowlhover 23:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

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

[edit] 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)

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).

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)