Jump to content

Talk:Milky Way/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

MILKY WAY GALAXY

Size consensus?

Are we going with this more updated size estimation or not?

https://www.businessinsider.com/milky-way-is-much-more-massive-than-previously-thought-2019-3

There is only brief mention of this much larger size estimation in the article.--Mapsfly (talk) 02:53, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

<copyvio removed> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.101.22.47 (talk) 09:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Fringe viewpoints

Someone might once have argued that there is some fine distinction between "Milky Way" and the "Milky Way Galaxy". In the real world, nobody makes this distinction. So it should not be promoted in the first sentence of the article. You can accept their prescriptivism in your personal life if you like but until such a distinction is widely observed in practice, it should not be in the article. 22funny (talk) 14:18, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. Textbooks are considered the most reliable sources, see WP:SOURCETYPES. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:25, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Please give as many examples as you can of this distinction that you are so enamoured of being made in practice. 22funny (talk) 14:32, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Noting sockblock of 22funny. I will unprotect the page and revert them. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:49, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the fast reaction.--Moxy- 14:52, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
  • In case anyone believes this sockpuppeteer nitwittery in the future, reading the talk page archives: This "fringe viewpoint" distinction between the observed structure and the galaxy named after it is in Britannica's on-line Milky Way Galaxy article, at the start of chapter 2 of ISBN 9783642615887 (page 119), and in all sorts of other places from ISBN 9780387765594 page 89 to van der Kruit's 2016 biography of Jan Hendrik Oort. Uncle G (talk) 20:20, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
    Maybe those should be added to the endnote. I'm thinking something like, Some authors use the term Milky Way to refer exclusively to the band of light that the galaxy forms in the night sky, while the galaxy receives the full name Milky Way Galaxy. See for example Lausten et al.,[1] Pasachoff,[2] Jones,[3] and van der Kruit.[4] I don't want to edit the lede without discussing it first, though. XOR'easter (talk) 15:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Agree. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
OK, one person agrees; that's good enough for me. :-) XOR'easter (talk) 15:57, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Our Solar System?

The first sentence says "The Milky Way[a] is the galaxy that includes our Solar System, ...." which implies the Solar System is a thing but it is in fact the name we give to the planetary system in which Earth resides in. Should it not say something like "The Milky Way is the galaxy that includes our planetary system (called Solar System), ....'? Darrenaustralia (talk) 06:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Instead of "our Solar System", it should read "the Solar System", following the logic of articles like Sun, Moon and Solar System. The capitalization distinguishes it from other planetary systems. –UpdateNerd (talk) 07:28, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
The English language is a tricky thing, especially when there is no verified nomenclature. "our planetary system"?... usage guides may show at some point that's where we are at. "the Solar System"?... average readers keep on asking "which one"? Wikipedia capitalization distinctions are not something any average reader would understand. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
This has been previously discussed at length here and the threads are available in the archives. Jusdafax (talk) 20:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Lead sentence edit suggestion

The Milky Way is the galaxy that includes our Solar System, with the name describing the wider galaxy's appearance from Earth: a hazy region of light seen in the night sky formed from stars and clouds of dust and gas in a large disc shape where they cannot be individually distinguished by the naked eye and instead form a wide, pale band when viewed from within, with intergalactic space being visible above and below.

alternatively:

...stars and clouds of dust and gas that cannot be individually distinguished by the naked eye and instead form a wide band due to the galaxy's disk shape being viewed from within, with intergalactic space being visible above and below.

Essentially merging the first sentence with the third, since the third felt too short and out of place and the second sentence was the etymology so it wouldn't make any sense to go back to explaining its appearance after changing the subject. A couple other changes that aren't really necessary but that I included here are specifying that the band of light is only the "wider" galaxy, since technically almost everything we can see with the naked eye is part of the galaxy even if it is astronomically distinct from the classical via lactea, mentioning the clouds of dust and gas since they contribute to the Milky Way's appearance as well, and ending off with a mention of the intergalactic void to better contextualize what is actually being observed. Orchastrattor (talk) 20:55, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

The general direction of the Sun's Galactic motion

> The general direction of the Sun's Galactic motion is towards the star Vega near the constellation of Hercules, at an angle of roughly 60 sky degrees to the direction of the Galactic Center.

> The Solar System is headed in the direction of the zodiacal constellation Scorpius, which follows the ecliptic (mentioned 2 times in the article).

These statements contradict each other because Hercules and Scorpius are located in very different directions. Likely, the second statement is false. Zyavrik (talk) 21:30, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Loads of prebiotic molecules found in Milky Way?

FWIW - (For being aware only of newly published relevant studies - not necessarily to incorporate into the main article) - On 8 July 2022, astronomers reported the discovery of massive amounts of prebiotic molecules, including for RNA, in the galactic center of the Milky Way Galaxy.[5][6] - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Lausten, Svend; Madsen, Claus; West, Richard M. (1987). Exploring the Southern Sky: a Pictorial Atlas from the European Southern Observatory (ESO). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. p. 119. ISBN 978-3-642-61588-7. OCLC 851764943.
  2. ^ Pasachoff, Jay M. (1994). Astronomy: From the Earth to the Universe. Harcourt School. p. 500. ISBN 978-0-03-001667-7.j
  3. ^ Jones, Barrie William (2008). The Search for Life Continued: Planets Around Other Stars. Berlin: Springer. p. 89. ISBN 978-0-387-76559-4. OCLC 288474262.
  4. ^ Kruit, Pieter C. van der (2019). Jan Hendrik Oort: Master of the Galactic System. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. pp. 65, 717. ISBN 978-3-030-17801-7. OCLC 1110483488.
  5. ^ Starr, Michelle (8 July 2022). "Loads of Precursors For RNA Have Been Detected in The Center of Our Galaxy". ScienceAlert. Retrieved 9 July 2022.
  6. ^ Rivilla, Victor M.; et al. (8 July 2022). "Molecular Precursors of the RNA-World in Space: New Nitriles in the G+0.693−0.027 Molecular Cloud". Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences. doi:10.3389/fspas.2022.876870. Retrieved 9 July 2022.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
How long until the prebiotics are available in gummy form? BilCat (talk) 22:08, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Outdated diameter

The page now uses a much older and outdated diameter even though the galaxy has been proved to be larger than originally thought. VY Canis Majoris (talk) 08:51, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Good find. Do you have a recent citation source, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:06, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
[1], pretty sure this was already in the article until someone changed it. VY Canis Majoris (talk) 20:15, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I am unable to link the source yet, but there is. It is different from the other one that mentions the Monoceros ring. The Space Enthusiast (talk) 23:59, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

This is not outdated; we have a discussion regarding this at the Wikipedia Reference Desk; see Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2022 August 2#The size of the Milky Way Galaxy.

The paper you just cited uses the Milky Way's disk stars. But the thing is we do not measure galaxy sizes using disk stars. Large-scale surveys of galaxies never use disk sizes as a definition of a galaxy's diameter. It is only applicable to use for Local Group galaxies where they are close enough to be detected.

Galaxy diameters are always measured through isophotes, fractional light radii, and scale lengths. The reference for the current diameter we have is the latest one that uses a standard that is widely accepted by astronomers as a definitive standard for a galaxy's physical size. (the D25 isophote; going as far back as 1936)

This is the reason this method being used is also stated in the infobox; Wikipedia has been the main culprit of disinformation as to why the general public is comfortable to give the Milky Way some absurdly large sizes. We have to make sure that what standard are we using is the objectifiable and correct one. Note that this also applies to other Local Group galaxies (Andromeda; the LMC and SMC have all been corrected, and Triangulum Galaxy's size is the same as the D25, so this is not an endemic problem).

You can see this paper from 2020 to have some background regarding the history of how we measure galaxy sizes: [2] SkyFlubbler (talk) 05:05, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

"from Earth?"

Not sure why a basic wording cleanup is being reverted. Continually repeating "night sky" is just bad wording. The "star trekie" statement "from Earth" does not belong in a section on "Appearance", where we are is a given, and the reason for reverting, " We have equipment like Voyager that are far from Earth" is illogical, Voyager is irrelevant to "Appearance" and the Milky Way has the exact same appearance no matter where any human or human made hardware views it. "from Earth" was removed (by me) 11 years ago and that has been the stable GA version for most of that time (re-inserted without comment in 2018). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:25, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Agree. I've restored it back to how you had it. Polyamorph (talk) 21:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

"Our Solar System" vs "The Solar System"

Since the "Solar System" refers to a specific star system, is the use of 'our' here correct? As we do not use it to say 'our earth' or 'our milky way' 125.168.227.128 (talk) 04:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

"The" Solar System seems better encyclopedically (and per language at the link). Randy Kryn (talk) 04:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Galaxy Image

A different picture should be put in the side view box for the galaxy as the current one does not provide a good visual of what the Milky Way looks like. Most other galaxy wiki pages have a artistic rendition of the galaxy being discussed. There are plenty of good images that can be used, NASA alone has several on their website that illustrate the whole Milky Way (not sure how galactic center, the current image, has anything to do with anything). 2601:14F:4501:3320:0:0:0:86F4 (talk) 10:11, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

discussed before. The infobox image covers the Milky Way as something you see in the sky and as a galaxy (seen edge on) and is far better than some artist rendition. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 11:41, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Structure: disk and bar

The Structure section is nice in that it discusses various components of the Milky Way. Would someone with sufficient knowledge add subsections for "Disk" and "Bar"? Possibly also "Thick disk" and "Thin disk" if appropriate. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 17:56, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Structure: disk and bar

The Structure section is nice in that it discusses various components of the Milky Way. Would someone with sufficient knowledge add subsections for "Disk" and "Bar"? Possibly also "Thick disk" and "Thin disk" if appropriate. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 17:56, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I am renewing this query. People talk about "thick disk" and "bar", etc. but the article has no easy way to quickly find a definition for these and several other components. If there were a sentence or two under a heading named for the component, for each of these, that would be a vast improvement. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 14:23, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Solar System

It would be "the Solar System" or "our solar system", right? The former uses the name; the latter uses its description. Compare to "the [Milky Way] Galaxy" and "our galaxy". —Quantling (talk | contribs) 01:18, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I have partially reverted the edit per WP:SDAVOID, it would require a reader to have pre-existing detailed knowledge of a Wikipedia construct that a capitalized "Solar System" means our Solar System. Probably the other de-capitalization is problematic with those who want absolute consistency as well. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
No, the proper descriptive terminology is extrasolar system, as "Solar System" exclusively pertains to the Sun, hence "solar." SkyFlubbler (talk) 20:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm not really sure what this discussion specifically pertains to, but Solar System is capitalized on Wikipedia only when it refers to the Sun's system. Other solar systems are usually referred to as a Planetary system. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:52, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
@SkyFlubbler: I am sympathetic to your argument to some extent. For example, I agree that we compare "the Sun" to "other stars" rather than to "other suns". However, I agree there because it is quite understandable to the common person when we use the more scientifically correct "other stars" rather than "other suns". However, "extrasolar systems" is not particularly clear to the common person. My experience with the astronomical literature is that "our solar system" or "other solar systems" are used (so long as they are lower case) despite that there really is only the one Solar System. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 21:58, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
See MOS:OUR, which describes that "our" should not be used when addressing readers in encyclopedic language. Wikipedia uppercases Solar System as a proper name when referring to the Solar System of the Sun (also a proper name, as is Moon and Earth). When referring to other star's systems it is either solar system or planetary system. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Been discussed to death and guidelines actually do not proscribed the use of our, re: "But some such forms are acceptable in certain figurative uses" and "There can be exceptions to these guidelines". In the English language, where there is the use of "solar system" for other "planetary systems", we need to state which one for the average reader. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:43, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Wasn't there just an RfC, closed on November 24, that designated the wording "the Solar System" which is totally consistent with Wikipedia style? Why is there an argument, is this a group of Wikipedians doing an IARules on the RfC? Thanks, just trying to get up to speed on why the edit war is occurring after the close of the RfC. Even the older no consensus 2017 RfC designated the uppercasing 'Solar System', so not understanding why there is an argument on the uppercasing which came out in favor of the Wikipedia style, Solar System, in both the discussed RfCs (2022 and 2017). Randy Kryn (talk) 07:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:STYLERET ""When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." If you believe an alternative style would be more appropriate for a particular article, discuss this at the article's talk page" and WP:PJ, "WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles". Its nice that Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy had an RfC but it is really only applicable to their project page. There is an extensive RfC on this, feel free to read it and/or start another RfC here.

Uppercase is a standard that has been put forward, feel free to change that back. I actually have no opinion on it. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, that was the ruling of the RfC you pointed out above (uppercased 'Solar System'). Randy Kryn (talk) 21:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Just additional, the reason for "our" is because we are using "solar system" as the thing included, and an average reader is going to ask "Which solar system"?. Its clunky wording logic wise but other wordings were shot down (see RfCs). There could be better better wording that avoids the problem, such as Britannica: "Milky Way Galaxy, large spiral system consisting of several hundred billion stars, one of which is the Sun." Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
@Fountains of Bryn Mawr: you just wrote "Which solar system?" (correct) not "Which Solar System?" (incorrect). That is, the use of "our" chooses one of many "solar systems" (lower case). On the other hand, the "Solar System" is the one solar system that contains the Earth. So, it's "our solar system" or "the Solar System", but not "our Solar System". These RfC's are all about "the" vs. "our" or "Solar System" vs. "solar system" but I don't see that they address the relationship between them. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 23:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
"solar system" vs "Solar System" is a Wikipedia construct. Its not a real world thing that the average reader will understand - and we write for the average reader. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Nope, it is not merely a Wikipedia construct; primary and secondary sources have a preference too. Nope, that the average user might not appreciate the difference is not carte blanche to feed the average reader bad usage; if the average reader cannot distinguish the subtlety between equally understandable uses, we break the tie by using one that is more technically correct: we use "the Solar system" or "our solar system" but not the barely distinguishable, incorrect "our Solar System". —Quantling (talk | contribs) 15:40, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

There's a recent RfC (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy#RfC:_inconsistency_with_the_planetary_system_around_Sol) that was closed ~6 days ago by Szmenderowiecki saying there's rough consensus to use the Solar System over our Solar System. Some1 (talk) 04:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

RfC needs to be here re: WP:PROJECT, "WikiProjects are not rule-making organizations, nor can they assert ownership of articles within a specific topic area. WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles." Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
While reverting my edit, and in response to my comment '"the Solar System" as used everywhere else in this article', @Fountains of Bryn Mawr: writes 'other instances are in reference to Sun/planets/location, not the basic definition. You need to bring this up in talk'. Would you please elaborate why you think that the Milky Way Galaxy containing the Solar System is different from the Solar System containing the Earth? It's the same solar system either way, so why do you argue that it is "our Solar System" for the former but that it is "the Solar System" for the latter? —Quantling (talk | contribs) 15:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
If I am following you correctly (it is getting confusing), lead sentences have to tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where. It should be in plain English. (MOS:LEADSENTENCE) After the lead, wording and context tells the reader which solar system we are talking about. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:41, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Ignoring MOS:OUR and using 'our' instead of the Wiki-normal and RfC vertified 'the' results in thinking our (see what I did there?) readers can't figure out that uppercased Solar System means the one we live in. This usage and page are now w. outliers to the standard guideline (at least ones which have had discussions on the talk page as far as I know). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:53, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
"have to tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is ... in plain English" is absolutely correct. The thing is, the nonspecialist reader does not find "our Solar System" nor "our solar system" more understandable than the other, so this quotation is not applicable to the current situation. Because it is not a question of reader understanding and because it is contrary to overwhelmingly prevalent usage in the article, choosing the incorrect form "our Solar System" over a correct form "our solar system" or "the Solar System" has no logical basis. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 16:17, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
I think I see what you mean from your first post on but diagramming it is breaking my brain. In context "our solar system" means one in the subset of "solar systems" - non-capital. "our solar system" taken out of that context has editors immediately capitalizing it - "our Solar System" that's a little more wrong than right. Adding a hyperlink "solar system" is incorrect usage per WP:EGG, goes to a hidden wrong article. Just observations, needs more work. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:55, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Previously I suggested "our solar system"; would "our solar system" be better — with the "our" part of the link text? I don't find it misleading to have "our solar system" land one on the "Solar System" page. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 17:02, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
When you link it you mean the capital Solar System, and it should be written that way. Your suggestion does true up the logic statement (a bit) if it is written "our Solar System". Wikipedia doesn't have a page for "solar system", it has Planetary system, which is what we mean in an "our solar system" link. Linking solar system ---->Solar System causes a hidden Easter egg link. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
This was again lowercased by Quantling and I've added back the correct uppercased form, please see the results of the 2017 RfC linked above and the Wikipedia stylebook regarding the name, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
This was again title-cased by Randy Kryn and I have added back the correct lowercase form, please see that the Talk:Milky Way/Archive 5 § Request for comment does not discuss case, hence we are not tied to the incorrect usage "our Solar System", thanks. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 19:31, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Maybe actually read the RfC. It was no consensus specifically said to keep the status quo, which was uppercasing 'Solar System' (which is also per Wikipedia style). Reading it shows that. If you WP:IDONTLIKEIT please have another RfC. Please also read MOS:OUR for an understanding of why Wikipedia shouldn't use 'our' anywhere. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
@Randy Kryn: the RfC Talk:Milky Way/Archive 5 § Request for comment discusses "the Solar System" vs. "our Solar System". That is not proof that "our solar system" is inappropriate for Wikipedia. You need another RfC if you are going to try to win this on authoritative grounds. Maybe I am misunderstanding which RfC you mean? Please share the specific link.
On the merits, in standard use, "Solar System" is a proper name and "solar system" is equivalent to "planetary system", a kind of structure in the galaxy. If you and I both have someone named "Ahmad" in our families then it could make sense to say "our Ahmad" and "your Ahmad" but, absent the shared name, such usage is awkward. There is no other solar system named "Solar System", so "our Solar System" is not encyclopoedic.
If MOS:OUR dominates then seemingly both "our Solar System" and "our solar system" are out. In such a case, let's use "the Solar System", a proper name that includes "the" (compare to "The Bahamas"). —Quantling (talk | contribs) 19:58, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes, 'the Solar System' is correct per MOS. Such as 'the Moon', 'the Sun' and 'the Earth'. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:00, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes! —Quantling (talk | contribs) 20:06, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Had I not been extremely busy in real life, I would have !voted in this latest for "our" which has been the stable version for about a decade here. Numerous RfC's confirmed it. Now this. I do not intend to reargue the merits yet again here at this time, nor revert the article, though I'm tempted, but I take exception to the relentlesss walls of text. I've been here 15 years, have over 100k edits, and am bone-weary of people who have nothing better to do than argue the same point endlessly. Jusdafax (talk) 20:22, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
I've seen the RfC where "our" vs. "the" was discussed and I've seen the Rfc where title case vs. lower case was discussed. Neither asked editors to opine on how the two questions interact. If no one can provide a link to an RfC that has already addressed the relationship then we need a discussion (or formal RfC) to address it. (No, an aside in one of the non-relationship RfC's cannot be said to have been fully debated or resolved.) Here is a summary of (what I understand to be) the standard use in the astronomy literature: "solar system" is like "moon" and only two of the following are correct
  1. The Moon is bigger than Mars' moon, Deismos. (Yes. "The Moon" is its name.)
  2. The moon is bigger than Mars' moon, Deismos. (No. Unless a specific moon was singled out in an earlier sentence, it is not clear which moon is being referred to by "the moon" -- it could be a moon of Jupiter's.)
  3. Our Moon is bigger than Mars' moon, Deismos. (No. If another planet also had a moon named "Moon" then it could be necessary to clarify which moon named "Moon" is indicated; "our" would seemingly indicate Earth's moon named "Moon". (I am speaking of common usage. Wikipedia has additional thoughts at MOS:OUR). Absent a second moon named "Moon", this is not correct usage.)
  4. Our moon is bigger than Mars' moon, Deismos. (Yes. The moon that circles Earth could be referred to as "our moon". (I am speaking of common usage. Wikipedia has additional thoughts at MOS:OUR).)
If you have a past RfC that posed a question with more than two of these of alternatives, now would be a good time to produce it. If not, now would be a good time to discuss these possibilities on their merits. Thank you —Quantling (talk | contribs) 14:52, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
MOS:OUR already covers everything in this discussion. Please, everyone, read it. Tattoo it on your forearm. The main sentence is "To maintain an objective and impersonal encyclopedic voice, an article should never refer to its editors or readers using I, my, we, us, our, or similar forms:" Never doesn't mean sometimes. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:55, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, Randy Kryn for your contribution to this discussion. As I see it, a problem with tattoos in the present situation is that there is limited space. If you read past the first sentence of MOS:OUR you will see that there are disclaimers and exceptions. Regardless, because my favorite is #1, I have no beef with your abbreviated version in the present case. If I understand you correctly, you are arguing against #3 and #4 above. Do you wish to express an opinion about #1 and #2? —Quantling (talk | contribs) 15:41, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
The part I did not quote above doesn't seem applicable. Neither of the examples fit the present question. To quote, there may be exceptions for either "In historical articles to mean the modern world as a whole: Only portions of De re publica have come down to us" or "The author's we found in scientific writing (We construct S as follows), though rephrasing to use passive voice may be preferable (S is constructed as follows).[o]." Which of those two create the exception for this article that whereupon MOS:OUR seems irrelevant? Applying one of those is the only way to get around the MOS guideline, although you could argue common sense objection or the heart of Wikipedia itself, WP:IAR. "Our solar system" sounds right because people are used to it. Wikipedia prefers "the Solar System", which seems the more encyclopedic option of the two. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
The sentence "We note that some have argued against our proposal" plus a few exceptions given in the following, taken together is why I don't see the first sentence as tattoo-worthy on its own. As I see it, MOS:OUR is definitely an important input for this discussion, but not a trump card. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 19:04, 2 December 2022 (UTC) Ah, maybe that sentence is an example to be avoided rather than an editorial comment about the policy itself. That changes my view of this paragraph! —Quantling (talk | contribs) 19:16, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Please fellow editors, don't remain silent while we discuss this and then revert the consensus that we arrive at. I have tried several times to engage you, seemingly reached a compromise with those in the discussion, and then had it reversed by someone who argues that the discussion is moot. Yes, I know that some of you think this is all said and done, but the applicability of the RfC's you cite as having already resolved the relationship between "the" vs. "our" and "solar system" vs. "Solar System" is not there. These past RfC's do not ask for opinions on this relationship and thus cannot be said to have resolved it. Instead of arguing "I don't have to argue", please clarify your opinions on #1–#4 above. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 15:59, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment this typifies many discussions on Wikipedia on really minor issues blowing out of all proportion. That said "our solar system" would appear to be the correct form. Polyamorph (talk) 17:16, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
  • based on 1) the local consensus that has been established here for a long time on the use of "our" and 2) Quantling's very reasonable arguments on title case vs. lower case. I respectively suggest users focus on more important matters and bring this discussion to a close. Polyamorph (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Should be noted that the guideline MOS:OUR is based on the policy WP:NPOV. "our Solar System" does not violate a neutral point of view, we all live here, so that is an exception to MOS:OUR. The problem with saying "the Solar System" is the average reader is going to say "which one?", There is no way around that without writing a different sentence such as "A large spiral system consisting of several hundred billion stars, one of which is the Sun." Clear comprehensible writing should always trump any guideline. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:48, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Not seeing anything in WP:NPOV that would be an exception to MOS:OUR. The only two exceptions are: "In historical articles to mean the modern world as a whole: Only portions of De re publica have come down to us" or "The author's we found in scientific writing (We construct S as follows), though rephrasing to use passive voice may be preferable (S is constructed as follows).[o]." The average reader could easily be one who sees the standard Wikipedia uppercased "Solar System" and knows exactly 'which one', we just don't know unless the WMF pays for a reader-based poll. Until then "the Solar System" seems the only form which complies with all preferred MOS language and the recent 2022 RfC (which some above claim not to count, but there it is). Randy Kryn (talk) 19:11, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Gotta follow the "See alsos if you want a fuller explanation of a guideline. When it comes to a readers understanding of a word, we don't do that, dictionaries do. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:48, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
"Our solar system" is not far from the listed WP:OUR exception "In historical articles to mean the modern world as a whole". Yes, the Solar System is also relevant in modern times, not merley historically, so it's not a perfect match to the exception. However, the Solar System does belong to the world as a whole, not merely some subset of us, and that's a big piece of this exception. That closeness to the exception, the above arguments about common use outside of Wikipedia, and the general WP:IGNORE freedom makes the "our solar system" compromise look best to me. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 18:10, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
What you suggest seems like stretching your preferred language into the MOS:OUR words "In historical articles to mean the modern world as a whole: Only portions of De re publica have come down to us" when just leaving the guideline stand produces a better and simpler result. Consistent with the rest of Wikipedia outside of where the language has yet to be changed (but consistent in the major articles), the words 'the Solar System' do not need an 'our' modifier to be understood or fit, but are the result of many discussions and a recently closed RM. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:19, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
@Randy Kryn: I'd settle for either your suggestion ("the Solar System") or mine ("our solar system"), but the current version ("our Solar System") should be rejected on the grounds that there is no other solar system that shares the name "Solar System" with our solar system. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 21:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Mine's not really a suggestion but phrasing backed by two Wikipedia styling preferences and site consistency. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:41, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
I am comfortable enough with both "the Solar System" and "our solar system" but the times I've made edits to the article to effect either of those, I've been met with reverts by people who indicate that their arguments beat others that have been made here. Before I attempt the solution of Randy Kryn ("the Solar System" replacing "our Solar System"), would anyone like to say more here? I am hoping your voice will acknowledge that there are four (4) possibilities in contention, rather than categorizing this discussion merely as "our" vs. "the" or merely as "solar system" vs. "Solar System". @Fountains of Bryn Mawr: @Jusdafax: @Polyamorph: @Quantling: @Randy Kryn: @SkyFlubbler: @Some1: —Quantling (talk | contribs) 17:01, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Per Polyamorph, you should leave it and move on. Continuing to lobby for the same rejected edit over and over again is considered disruptive editing. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@Fountains of Bryn Mawr: Thank you for you continued participation in this discussion. If your opinion is obviously the majority then you are correct to raise the concern of disruptive editing. If your opinion is not obviously the majority then please allow the discussion to continue. I see further above that you support the "our" forms over "the" forms and that you have at least some sympathy to the argument that "our solar system" is more correct than "our Solar System". Furthermore, you express WP:EGG concern about having "solar system" as the link text to "Solar System" but have some sympathy about having "our solar system" as the link text to "Solar System". —Quantling (talk | contribs) 20:46, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately the preference of Fountains of Bryn Mawr for "our" and the preference of Randy Kryn for "the" are at odds with each other. My preference is that if we go with "our" then the the case should be "our solar system" and that if we go with "the" then the case should be "the Solar System". What a mess. Any other voices to help us move this along? —Quantling (talk | contribs) 20:55, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. I support "the Solar System" per MOS:OUR (and would oppose "our Solar System" and "our solar system"). I don't see any reasons why this article should be an exception to the MOS; there's nothing extraordinary about it. Anyway, apparently the last RfC on this the vs our debate for this specific article was in 2017 (since some think Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy#RfC:_inconsistency_with_the_planetary_system_around_Sol) doesn't apply to this article), so a new RfC should be created. Some1 (talk) 23:31, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
I am sympathetic to having a new RfC because the previous RfCs did not ask for opinions about how "the" vs. "our" interacted with "solar system" vs. "Solar System". However, I don't know how to create an RfC; and where there are decisions to be made in that process, I am likely not aware of their long-term implications. I could bite the bullet anyway, but if anyone else would like to take the lead on that and/or leave sage advice about that here, that would be appreciated! —Quantling (talk | contribs) 13:41, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
What would the question be? "Should the first sentence of this article ignore site consistency, MOS:OUR, MOS:CELESTIALBODIES, and the recent RfC decision concerning this page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy" seems the most accurate. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:13, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

My naïve draft of an RfC is:

The article's current short description is "Galaxy containing our Solar System", its first sentence begins "The Milky Way is the galaxy that includes our Solar System, ...", and there are 18 uses of "the Solar System" in the body of the article. Of the following four possibilities, which should be used in these 20 cases?:
  1. the Solar System
  2. the solar system
  3. our Solar System
  4. our solar system

And either immediately thereafter or as part of a later comment, whichever location is more appropriate, I would then support my preference order, which is that either #1 or #4 is much better than either #2 or #3. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 15:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Its reasonable to have an RFC given this is bogged down in circular arguments. Your wording sounds sufficiently neutral to me Polyamorph (talk) 15:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Too many options might lead to a no consensus result, especially when the four options are a bit repetitive and seem to touch on both the the vs our debate and the capitalization. What about simplifying it to:
Which option should this article use?
Option 1: the (i.e. the Solar System, the solar system)
Option 2: our (i.e. our Solar System, our solar system)
Some1 (talk) 19:29, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
No, because "the solar system", lowercased, is not "allowed" per MOS:CELESTIALBODIES. Just the two options "the Solar System" and "our solar system" would be sufficient if you all want to waste time on another RfC, but when it's put up please ping everyone at the recent astronomy RfC which directly addressed this exact page and this exact question. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Agreed, let's just have two options: A) the Solar System and B) our solar system. Some1 (talk) 21:41, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
I have some personal experience with trying to change the present article away from "our Solar System"; people revert it and accuse me of all sorts of things. So, not including that possibility in the RfC will likely cause people to challenge the neutrality or validity of the RfC. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 17:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Since all instances of 'Solar System' in this article are capitalized, what about asking: Should the article use "the Solar System" instead of "our Solar System"? Yes No (and if No, should "our Solar System" be lowercased to "our solar system"?) Some1 (talk) 17:43, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Would this impact other articles? The first sentence of Sun is currently "The Sun is the star at the center of the Solar System", and there are further mentions down the article. I'm in favor of switching the phrasing of Milky Way to "the Solar System", perhaps this is relevant to the discussion. BanunterX (talk) 12:32, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
BanunterX, the new RfC will only affect this Milky Way article, not the others. Side note: an RfC was recently closed here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy#RfC:_inconsistency_with_the_planetary_system_around_Sol) which I assumed affected multiple articles, but one editor seemed to have disagreed. Betseg, since you created the RfC: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy#RfC:_inconsistency_with_the_planetary_system_around_Sol), could you let us know if it was your intention to have the closure of the RfC affect multiple other articles such Milky Way, Sun, etc? Some1 (talk) 14:48, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Since this discussion seems to have stalled a couple of weeks ago, and two major guidelines and a recent RfC support the use of 'the Solar System', I have edited that in. Randy Kryn (talk) 06:18, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Stalled means there was no consensus and editors seem to have gone on to other things. The discussion was not even focused one a single change re:
  • "capitalization disagreement (more than one solar system with logical de-capitalization)
  • "capitalization disagreement (are "our/the" modifiers of a multiple set or a single set)
  • "our" debate (do readers think there is more than one solar system with need to specify)
  • "the" debate (establish there is one solar system with no need to specify)
  • "the" with "Solar System" debate (do readers know what Wikipedia capitalization means)
anyway, you need a focus discussion and need to reach consensus on that discussion. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:08, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Look at the size of this discussion, kind of a waste of editor's time in my opinion but you seem to want to continue and have even placed a "Factual accuracy disputed" tag at the top of the page (what is inaccurate?). It seems consensus has been reached, but again, there was a recent RM which "codified" 'the Solar System', which also meets MOS:OUR and MOS:CELESTIALBODIES. As to uppercasing or lowercasing, uppercasing Solar System meets page and site consistency. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:34, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
I've changed the wording back to MOS violation 'our Solar System' because you do have a point about status quo (although sitewide status quo consistency is now broken again). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:34, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
I suggest starting an RfC for this specific article or asking an uninvolved admin if the conclusion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy#RfC:_inconsistency_with_the_planetary_system_around_Sol applies to this article. Some1 (talk) 15:55, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
I've just started the RfC since the previous RfC at this article took place six years ago, and an editor seems to thinks that the result at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy#RfC:_inconsistency_with_the_planetary_system_around_Sol doesn't apply to this article. Some1 (talk) 20:59, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

"Factual accuracy disputed" tag follows what several editors in this discussion have said: that "stating there is more than one "solar system" is inaccurate, there is only one". This discussion started as a capitalization dispute based on there being more than one solar system and that we need to follow basic set/subset logic. It has a cross purpose age old discussion thrown in re: a demand that the Wikipedia be a usage guide with us declaring there is only one thing called "solar system" (please note - Wikipedia is not a usage guide). If the average reader's understanding is that more than one "solar system" then we are not even talking about a pronoun change, we have to write a totally different logical sentence. I do not think we can declare we are a usage guide, enforce a single usage, and then base our pronouns on that usage, way beyond our remit as Wikipedia editors. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:26, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

That's already been addressed on Wikipedia long ago. Other solar systems are called Planetary systems. The proper name, Solar System, is reserved for the Sun and its crew. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:56, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Correct, and get a grip with the pronoun nonsense. Our sun is called Sol, hence our planetary system is the Solar system. A planetary system around another star cannot have the same name - the planetary system of Betelgeuse might be called the Betelgeusian system, maybe. Plantsurfer 19:25, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Just bringing this to the discussion, Archive_5#Request_for_comment TLDR, sorry if this already present. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:52, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Yep, this is getting as long as the Archive 5 RfC, and still covering the same old ground. Per Randy Kryn - Wikpedia does not name things, not its job. An average reader will not be hip to Wikipedia's internal orginization. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:14, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Milky Way

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Milky Way's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "RC3":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 05:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Fixed. Hqb (talk) 07:07, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

RfC on our Solar System vs the Solar System

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus for the change, namely that the Solar System should be referred to as "the Solar System" in the first sentence.
—Alalch E. 11:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

The article is inconsistent: the lead sentence currently says "our Solar System" but the body of the article uses "the Solar System".

Which of the following should be the lead sentence of this article?

  1. The Milky Way is the galaxy that contains our Solar System.
  2. The Milky Way is the galaxy that contains the Solar System.

20:52, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

  • Our has been the the stable version for many years, through multiple discussions. Keep it. As I say above, those who relentlessly keep trying to change it wear me out, and I object to yet another RfC. Really? At what point do we call this disruptive? Jusdafax (talk) 22:25, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
It is a quirk of our community on wikipedia to discuss minor issues ad nauseam given how we're all stickler for rules. It's not disruptive to seek wider commentary, consensus can evolve. Polyamorph (talk) 09:38, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
I also suggest requesting ECP to remedy it. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:32, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
I can live with this. Thank you, looks like a good resolution - FlightTime (open channel) 23:11, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Well, the Earth does not have a Solar System, it is within the Solar System. That's literally as divergent from MOS:CELESTIALBODIES as saying "Los Angeles and its Solar System". Sol specifically refers to the Sun, the central star which gives name to the Solar System. The Earth is just one of thousands of celestial objects which encompass it. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:49, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
  • The. For a very long time we have used "Our" on the basis that other "solar" systems exist. However, there is only one "Sol" and other systems are termed "planetary systems" so there is no need for disambiguation. Polyamorph (talk) 08:42, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Our. Who are we worried about by saying this? Andromedans reading the article and deciding that Wikipedia has POV issues in 2,537,000 years, when our light cone intersects with theirs? They can file a complaint on WP:NPOVN in the year 5,076,023. In more seriousness, the Wikipedian fixation on formal language at the expense of simplicity and readability is bogus. jp×g 13:20, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
  • This is an issue of encyclopedic language preferred over informal language, not an issue to address the Andromedans and other put-out-the-good-popcorn worthy visitors. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:24, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
  • The, just like the Moon, the Sun, the Orion Arm, the Local Group, etc. I see no compelling reason to deviate from MOS:OUR here. Hqb (talk) 13:54, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Doesn't matter. If you're looking for work, perhaps someone could help at Delta-v budget? It has several poorly-sourced tables of required delta-v. I even deleted the one about station keeping because besides being unsourced it was obviously incorrect. It would be great to have reliable numbers there. Tercer (talk) 16:20, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
  • The - There is no compelling reason why the Manual of Style (MOS:OUR) should be ignored. That "our" is what is currently used just means it needs improvement, that is not a reason to keep a problematic wording. - Aoidh (talk) 03:01, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Our at first glance. The list from 172.195.96.244 is informative for me, but perhaps not in the way they intended. I agree we would say 'the earth' in conversation and not 'our earth'. However, I do routinely say 'our moon'. What's the difference between them? Earth is not a category of thing, it is a singular thing. Moon is a category of thing in addition to a proper noun. The our serves a disambiguation purpose. So where does that leave us with solar systems? As is now readily apparent there are nearly uncountable solar systems, some quite well known. In this case I feel it's use as a category of thing eclipses its use as a proper noun. --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 13:37, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Comment. WhoIs makes a persuasive point and I almost changed my !vote. But we don't know what anyone named or will name the uncountable other solar systems. We only have one, named after the Sun. That word's Old English roots is enough to tell me the "Sun" could have been named something else, and so can the uncountable others. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm certainly not looking to press the issue, you're entirely welcome to your view. But this isn't a 'future' thing. Solar systems like Kepler-90 have the same number of planets as our solar system. TRAPPIST-1 is another solar system with seven planets in it. I consume media that maybe predisposes me to keeping them front of mind more then most, but at the end of the day clarity wins out for me. That's not to say other opinions are 'wrong', just adding my two cents. --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 18:19, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
It's OK, not my area of expertise. But neither one of those two articles says Kepler or Trappist solar system per se. My husband agrees it's "the" because the uncountable are named "stellar systems," or in Wikipedia-speak, star systems. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
The article on star systems you linked is for when multiple stars orbit each other, not planets around a star. But it does include a disambig link to Planetary system which suite the discussion more. But I do take your point. I just think I come down on the other side of it :) --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 19:38, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, you're right, the Solar System is a planetary system. -SusanLesch (talk)
Indeed, the Solar System is our planetary system (lower case) not our Planetary System (title case). So if we are to go with "our" we need to go with lower case. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 14:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
  • The - I personally like "our", but I'll defer to WP:OUR and the recent RFC linked above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:17, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
  • The. One would not say that the solar system contains "our Earth." And there is only one Solar System (capitalized). There's no need to distinguish it with "our." Scapulus (talk) 12:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
  • The - The deciding factor should be whether the general usage of the term Solar System (both capitalised or not) refers specifically to our solar system or planetary systems in general. The article Solar System linked to in the sentence in question makes it clear right at the start that the article is about our solar system. Furthermore, in academia, solar system is used overwhelmingly to refer to ours, while planetary system is the generic term to include extrasolar ones. See e.g. the classification on arXiv.org, where "Structure and formation of the solar system" rather than "our solar system" is used in the section Earth and Planetary Astrophysics. Compare also to Britannica's definition of solar system. The reference to the NASA educational page by Fountains of Bryn Mawr above is not a good defence of "our", since the only mention of "other solar systems" is in the lead, most likely chosen to create the link in the novice reader that extrasolar planetary systems are in the same category as our own. Further down in the lead, it reads "This means there are potentially thousands of planetary systems like our solar system within the galaxy!" Deltasct (talk) 16:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
  • The - as I argued above, our sun is called Sol, hence our planetary system is the Solar system. A planetary system around another star cannot have the same name.Plantsurfer 16:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
  • The. It's a proper noun, MOS:OUR, and we just had an RfC on this exact issue which showed a consensus for 'the'. Repeating the same exercise on a different talk page is pointless duplication of effort. Modest Genius talk 18:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
  • The. The use of "our Solar System" makes sense only if there were another planetary system with the same name "Solar System" and we had to distinguish the two. For second place, I'd choose "our solar system" (lower case) because that is close enough to "our planetary system" and "our" is being used to distinguish among things (planetary systems) rather than among names of things ("Solar System"); however "our solar system" (lower case) is not a listed possibility for this RfC. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 19:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
  • The because there are no other 'solar' systems. I'm not very knowledgeable in this area but I was under the impression that 'solar' referred to Sol, and that there can be no other solar system (assuming we don't name another star Sol), so to say our in this context makes little sense, as we live in the only possible solar system. Right? Cessaune (talk) 01:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
  • The Solar system, because 'Solar system' is the proper name of the stellar system of the star whose proper name is Sol. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
  • The. I find the use of a first-person pronoun in an encyclopedia very jarring, and I feel that removing it does not add ambiguity. BanunterX (talk) 15:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
  • The. I see no reason for an exception to MOS:OUR. The core of the argument for our seems to be the following which was stated earlier: The problem with saying "the Solar System" is the average reader is going to say "which one?". I strongly disagree that the average reader is going to experience any such confusion. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Our, because it eliminates all possible confusion about whether the particular system in question is ours or another planetary system. When we acquire our first readers from a different planetary system, then I'll cheerfully reconsider. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
    If it were only 'the solar system', then I could see how there might be possible confusion, but it's "the Solar System" (capitalized) with a link to Solar System. And there's already a hatnote in the Solar System article with a mention of and link to planetary system if readers are looking for that instead. This is similar to the Moon situation where the page discusses "Earth's only natural satellite", but has a hatnote link to natural satellite if readers are interested in reading about moons in general. Some1 (talk) 03:52, 19 January 2023 (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.

Size of Milky Way Galaxy

This is cause this entire article is factually incorrect, has many faulty claims or is based on very old data. Milky way is over 170 000 light years across, there's actual factual data published in this regard for some years now, and latest Gaia observation also prove this hypothesis. I'll just leave one link to Astronomy site, which is sort of authority on most astronomy issues where scientific papers are peer reviewed, including on size of our galaxy. https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2018/04/aa32880-18/aa32880-18.html - You don't agree with it, feel free to speak to chaps @ESO, ESA and NASA who verified and published same data. 81.78.215.236 (talk) 00:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

  • You may be right, I don't personally know. Maybe regular page editors knowledgeable on the subject will check your recent two edits for accuracy, and act on your information above. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. You are now a Wikipedian. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

There's ample data and research published to date to amend and update current data on size of MWG from current ~100 000 light years to very likely 175000+ Light years https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2018/04/aa32880-18/aa32880-18.html, I am frustrated that this hasn't been done in 2019 when latest Gaia data was published. https://astronomy.com/news/2018/06/supersize-me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.78.215.236 (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Let me address this issue, since I raised this at the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2022 August 2. This is a quick take for me.
The Gaia data that you just linked made the figure by looking at the Monoceros Ring and using this to delineate the size of the Milky Way. This is a problematic definition, as the Monoceros Ring is more precisely a stellar stream that is extremely faint and might just be an outlying galactic feature. We have to do the same thing for other galaxies, as we should not give the Milky Way some special treatment just because it is our home galaxy. For example Andromeda, and it has very large stellar streams as well, which this outlines has having a diameter in excess of 650,000 light-years.
So should we go out there and then claim Andromeda is actually 650,000 light-years across? No, of course not. Because this is not how you define the size of a galaxy. Using faint stellar streams which is sparsely populated by stars is already a big stretch to how we define the "size" of a galaxy. We do not use this definition in large-scale surveys and is not really helpful.
Galaxy sizes are defined either by the D25 isophote, the half-light radius or some form of it, as well as scale lengths (see Galaxy#Physical diameters). And these are the definitions we use for decades. It is applied to many large-scale surveys and gives us a better overview of the size of a galaxy. We can debate about its basis, but it is in widespread use in the literature so it will be very hard for you to go against this.
The 1998 paper by Goodwin is the latest one we have that gives the size of the Milky Way using one of the definitions above (the D25 isophote), giving us the diameter of 26.8 ± 1.1 kpc (87,400 ± 3,600 light-years). This is consistent with other studies because we already have proven that beyond the 80,000 light-year diameter mark, the surface brightness falls very rapidly and transitions to the halo. Sure, we might have some stars beyond this point (all the way to halfway to Andromeda) but we expect that the significant bulk (<90%) of the surface brightness is within the 80,000 light-year diameter. This is why Wikipedia should use the figure by Goodwin (1998) because it is a fixed standard that gives us a better idea of the extent of the Milky Way. Anything that claims beyond this (like the 170,000 light year diameter you give) should be treated with caution and be examined as to how they got to this definition. SkyFlubbler (talk) 16:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
And before you claim to me that I am making this up, here is a paper by the ESO/Uppsala that cites the D25 as the standard diameter. And here is a document by NASA outlining the use of the D25. SkyFlubbler (talk) 17:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Shape of the Milky Way

Apparently it's not at all clear that the Milky Way is a barred spiral galaxy anymore, according to data from Gaia (see journalistic report in German – oddly I've found nothing in English); compare here. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 10:11, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Mass section

I've been reading the mass section and it appears to be a bit of a mess. It's not very clear to the average reader the difference among the estimates, and exactly which numbers apply to what. Also it is not stated clearly if at all what the luminous mass is compared with the dark matter mass.

In particular, there are several statements which seem to contradict each other, like what is the expected estimates of the mass of the Andromeda galaxy for comparison.

I think it's a matter of the writing and structure. However not being expert on this particular topic, and the nuances of measurement, I wouldn't wish to fix this myself

Richardhod (talk) 11:26, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

our disturbing neighbors

… a ripple or vibration set up by the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds as they orbit the Milky Way, causing vibrations when they pass through its edges.

Is the word "edges" an error for "plane"? The galaxy itself does not extend as far as the MCs, I thought. —Tamfang (talk) 21:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Inconsistent age of HD140283

The current text reads: "Another star, HD 140283, is 14.5 ± 0.7 billion years old."

This is inconsistent with the prevailing theory of the age of the universe (around 13.8 billion years). The article on HD 140283 notes that "...more recent models of its stellar evolution have suggested revision of the star's age to 13.7 billion years."

Suggest the text be corrected to that later revision. Sbamberger (talk) 03:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

The large uncertainty brings the value in line with the accepted age of the universe. Although it would be sensible to use the 13.7 billion year value here. Polyamorph (talk) 07:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Tag fixing

The {{GAR request}} tag has been placed on this talk page. Looking the article over, there are around half a dozen citation needed tags on the article. Could any page watchers help cite those paragraphs? Many thanks, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Mass is much smaller

doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347513 gives 2.06 1011 solar masses. That is a order of magnitude lower Than 1.15×1012 from the article. --Stone (talk) 07:16, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Size

Milky Way Galaxy size, every recent paper from Gaia research [1] and various other academic and science sources. [2][3] [4] In most cases Galaxy is quoted to be between 120 to 200 000 light years across,[5] [6]not what this wiki article postulates 87000 light years. Data for this article dates back to 1990s, so it is very much out of date and no actual link to research but reference to some article, this isn't sufficient to to considered definitive or even accurate data. The fact that wiki has locked this article against editing ensures this data can't be disputed or corrected unless you're an editor on Wikipedia. Another reason why I never give money to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.26.122.240 (talk) 21:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Scholarly article postulates based on Gia observation, disk starts at 95.7% at 31pcs or 100 000 lightyears away from the center of the galaxy giving the Milky Way Galaxy a radius of 200 000Ly~[7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.26.122.240 (talk) 03:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://sci.esa.int/web/gaia/
  2. ^ https://www.sciencenews.org/article/astronomers-have-found-edge-milky-way-size
  3. ^ https://www.astronomy.com/science/supersize-me/
  4. ^ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/galaxy-may-be-way-bigger-we-thought-180954532/
  5. ^ https://www.sci.news/astronomy/science-milky-way-galaxy-may-be-larger-than-thought-02587.html
  6. ^ https://www.astronomy.com/science/supersize-me/
  7. ^ https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/abs/2018/04/aa32880-18/aa32880-18.html
Declined - I'm sorry but we will not accept this request.
The Gaia article that you have cited uses disk stars as the limiter. But here is the thing: major astronomical surveys do not use this definition of size. This definition is restricted to Local Group galaxies, largely on Andromeda and the Milky Way, because tracing faint disk stars becomes impossible at distances beyond the Local Group.
Galaxy sizes in surveys like 2MASS, RC3, and SDSS uses either the D25 standard or variations of the half-light radius (see Galaxy#Physical diameters section for context) to measure the diameters of galaxies. This is widely regarded as standard (see this NED/IPAC document) for astronomy and so we should follow this definition. In the case of the Milky Way, the latest paper that uses this definition is Goodwin (1998), which made a figure for the diameter at 26.8 ± 1.1 kiloparsecs (87,400 ± 3,600 light-years) using D25.
See also Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2022 August 2#The size of the Milky Way Galaxy for the in-depth discussion about this topic. SkyFlubbler (talk) 03:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Mass

Stated Mass is entirely incorrect and confusing readers.

Mass is not 1.15 x 10^12, but 2.06 10^11. Any recent article references the Milky Way to be 200 billion suns in mass. This is especially apparent when viewing articles discussing dark matter, where the visible mass is pinned at 60 billion suns, and dark matter occupying the remaining 140 billion solar masses. Dark Matter in the Milky Way having ubiquitously having a mean ratio of 2:1 over ordinary matter; historically 2.3:1, most recently 1.81:1. Now if we can at least agree that either way, your 1.15 x 10^12 figure is way off so that someone can investigate something that reflects reality and not confuse the viewers and readers. I myself was confused when looking at the mass because I was looking at the 1.81:1 dark matter to matter ratio and saw a figure of 60 billion mass. You are causing mass confusion. Fix this.

I am outraged that the mass has not be updated.

Outraged.

https://www.observatoiredeparis.psl.eu/IMG/pdf/pr_op-psl_mass_milky_way_en_v3def.pdf Tted3286 (talk) 00:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

redirect List of names for the Milky Way to Milky Way (mythology)

More room, more material can be preserved. Serendipodous 23:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2024

Futher to the most recent edit, even more is warranted. Please just remove the sentence "Beyond a radius of roughly 40,000 light years (13 kpc) from the center, the number of stars per cubic parsec drops much faster with radius.[113]" from the Contents section. 1) The source doesn't back this up; it's talking about certain stars and doesn't talk about overall density. 2) It doesn't seem to make a claim like this anyway, and 3) it's just plain nonsensical -- "... the number of stars per cubic parsec drops much faster with radius." drops faster than what? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:51, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Milky_Way/Archive_6&oldid=1258974865"