Contents

Talk:Sombrero Galaxy

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sombrero Galaxy 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. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Astronomy: Astronomical objects Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/2003/28/image/a makes the odd claim that "this magnificent galaxy has a diameter that is nearly one-fifth the diameter of the full moon". Apparently the galaxy is local to the solar system and composed of very tiny stars. Is there ongoing research about the implications of this? What is the Sombrero Galaxy's orbit? --[[User:Eequor|ηυωρ]] 22:51, 25 Sep 2004 (UTClol

I think you misinterpreted that sentence; they probalby mean that the angular diameter of the galaxy is one fifth of the full moon's angular diameter. ✏ Sverdrup 00:41, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The sombrero galaxy is the cap known by the philippines and it was made by me! i am an great tinker or inventor! add me of facebook!take a look at my inventions! hello to everyone who reads this thanks!i hate justin bieber!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.210.253.1 (talk) 12:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] 

I took out the part that said "just faint enough to be invisible to the naked eye but" as it was misleading. At mag 8 (8.3 according to some sources) M104 is 13 times fainter than the faintest stars visible with the naked eye from reasonably dark skies (limiting magnitude 5.5) --Kalsermar 19:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since I spent a year of professional research on this galaxy, I want to make a few changes to this entry. My changes on 21 June 2006 include updating all of the information in the fact box (using information from NED), updating the distance measurement discussion, and adding a note on the supermassive black hole. (Someone should create a bot to download all the information from NED or the Third Reference Catalogue into Wikipedia.)

Partly because this galaxy has a large bulge, it's been a popular target for distance measurements in astronomy. The Ajhar et al. and Ford et al. references in the article represent the best measurements available. (One key criticism that I received from the referee for my Astrophysical Journal paper was that I didn't use these people's measurements.) Most of the other distance measurements in the literature appear to rely on redshift. Since M104 is close to the Virgo cluster, the cluster causes M104 to deviate from Hubble's law, so distance measurements based on redshift do not work well. Therefore, I decided to delete the old text with the broad distance range.

From a professional standpoint, the giant black hole in the center is really amazing. Even professional astronomers are awed by a 10⁹ Mʘ black hole. Since this has been a popular target for X-ray and radio black hole observations over the years, I will be adding more discussion in the future.

I also plan on finding references for some of the other scientific statements about this galaxy. The comments on the globular clusters, the halo, and the early redshift measurement are all unreferenced. If I don't find anything, I may delete the comments in the future.

GeorgeJBendo 11:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I found quite a few papers specifically on the globular clusters of the Sombrero Galaxy with which I was able to expand the Globular Clusters section. The revised version should be a vast improvement over the previous section. I did not include every reference on globular clusters in the Sombrero Galaxy that I could find, but other editors are welcome to insert appropriate references.

On the other hand, I had problems finding papers that discussed the size of the halo of the Sombrero Galaxy (other than a paper on distance measurements), so I deleted the Halo section.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0803/M104b_peris2048.jpg Visually more stunning with lots of extra M104 galaxy details visible and lots of extra stars and so on... Way better overall quality. Part of the problem is that current image is a "featured picture". And I'm not sure about copyright status - new one got "Credit & Copyright: Vicent Peris (OAUV / PTeam), MAST, STScI, AURA, NASA". NASA is there but I'm not sure if we can still upload picture to wiki with all others credits? TestPilot 12:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC) PS. Here is full resolution version of new picture: http://pixinsight.com/gallery/frontcover/200803-1/M104_hst.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by TestPilot (talk • contribs) 12:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a fantastic image, I hope there are no problems to upload the full resolution version. --Gildos (talk) 23:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I am just blind, but there no units present for this galaxy's redshift on the righthand table.

Are standard units km/s? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.168.186 (talk) 00:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Galaxy: Exploring the milky way says the size is 50000LY. Should I put this in? Mocha2007 (talk) 18:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The History section provides information on its discovery and entry into catalogues, and the lead indicates that it resembles a sombrero, but the article contains no information on who made that connection, and when. Are there any sources which might point the way? Lockesdonkey (talk) 04:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the best photo I've seen of M104. Part of the work was done by NASA but part of it wasn't. Therefore, I don't know about the copyright status. It would be good if it could be used. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to Space.com the famus Sombrero Galaxy is more likley to be an eliptical galaxy with a dust ring due to a new infared image of the galaxy.^[1] Here is the image in greater detail if you would like to use it on Wikipedia (I would myself but I don't know about all they copyright stuff) http://i.space.com/images/i/000/016/942/original/sombrero-galaxy.jpg?1335378755. Davidbuddy9 (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--

I understand that its already mentioned but I believe its misleading to say,

"The Sombrero Galaxy (also known as Messier Object 104, M104 or NGC 4594) is an unbarred spiral galaxy" 

when really it should be

"The Sombrero Galaxy (also known as Messier Object 104, M104 or NGC 4594) is an unusual elliptical galaxy with a spiral galaxy like dust ring." 

Davidbuddy9 (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sombrero Galaxy. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070117183138/http://www.spacetelescope.org/images/html/opo0328a.htmltohttp://www.spacetelescope.org/images/html/opo0328a.html

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) 19:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]