Talk:NGC 6946

"provisionally known as"

"Provisionally" (like "tentatively") is not the right word. It implies that some group has formally adopted the name as a temporary name until a permanent decision can be made. That's not the case here; the name has simply been adopted through repeated use. The wording "sometimes known as" conveys the situation more accurately. -- Elphion (talk) 04:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Funny to watch a bunch of inept vandals continuously restoring this moronic wording for no apparent reason though. Someone should report them somewhere. If Wikipedia were a serious encyclopaedia, they'd be quickly banned for such contemptible idiocy. 95.97.85.50 (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They are not vandals. The primary purpose appears to be to characterize the name as unofficial or temporary. But "provisional" is the wrong word for either, and it's not clear whether the name is in fact temporary. It does not yet have quite the currency of other street names. -- Elphion (talk) 20:17, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Elphion: Look. If you look at the reference [3] it says "Gemini Observatory Welcomes 2005 with Release of Galactic Fireworks Image."[1] Nowhere does it say "Fireworks galaxy" at all, and this is the first to associate the words in such a reference. It refers to the large number of active HII regions, but most SAB-type 'grand design' galaxies are like this. I will add 'unofficial' here instead of 'provisionally', even though the definition : "arranged or existing for the present, possibly to be changed later" is perfectly 110% correct. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But the related [PDF] published by gemini.edu labels it explicitly "The Fireworks Galaxy". The name is getting to be fairly widespread: it appears, e.g., in websites published by NASA (for example [APOD] and [JPL], among several others), the University of Arizona (e.g., [Sky Center], and S&T ([AT 2017eaw]). My point, however, is not that the name is "sometimes" used (as I argued above, and which seems undeniable at this point), but that "provisional" is the wrong term. The definition you provide partially captures the connotation, which is that something is "provided" by some body or authority as a semi-official stand-in pending further official action. That's not what's going on here (or for any "street name"). Your alternative ("unofficially") works much better. -- Elphion (talk) 05:43, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sro23: The origin starts in 31st December 2005 not in 2017. Wikipedia is very likely source of these recent editions, and is again an example of perpetuating common names creation for notoriety or just for the sake of it. As for: "Your alternative ("unofficially") works much better." This was Sro23's idea, in which I gratefully thank them. Cheers. Arianewiki1 (talk) 06:36, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Elphion: Ref. [PDF] says fireworks is tentative Ie. The "Fireworks" Galaxy. It was not known as this. Arianewiki1 (talk) 06:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not seeing anything tentative claimed about the name in the PDF, certainly not the word "tentative". It does put the name in quotes, signifying that it's not an official name. -- Elphion (talk) 07:03, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course WP serves to establish names more broadly, just as it disseminates knowledge more broadly. You can argue (correctly) that more people use the name because it has appeared in WP, though that's not the only force behind the name. But WP did not invent the name, it was reporting earlier usage. APOD, e.g., picked the name up quite quickly, nearly 2 years before it appeared here. -- Elphion (talk) 07:10, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Elphion: Just a few points. The article date is 1st January 2005, with the release date 31st January 2004 (not 2005. which is likely a mistake and was probably lost in translation. Spanish 'Sábado 1 de enero de 2005' being 1st January 2005). APOD is dated 25th January 2005, which is afterwards. "Like the annual New Year’s fireworks display," is merely the means of making the story popular, created by the Gemini publicity staff to promote the observatory's works. Also"WP did not invent the name", but is used to perpetuate it. APOD wrongly labelled the name, but the actual cite/linked source does not. The name is merely 'the caption.' Saying "nearly 2 years before it appeared here." is how? The pdf is not dated, but the press release date is certainly 31st December 2004.

Press release was also used under; "A Stellar Debut for Gemini Observatory's Online Image Gallery | NSF om Jan 10, 2005 here [[2]] "Fireworks Galaxy" does not appear here. Arianewiki1 (talk) 01:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)

Let me clarify what I think are the main points in response to your argument:

(1) The name "Fireworks Galaxy" appeared in the PDF, which I presume is roughly coeval with the ESO press release. You can assert that the words were meant as a caption, not as a name, but the vast majority of readers will have taken it as a name (as I think it was intended). Certainly the APOD editors took it that way.

(2) The APOD editors picked this up early in 2005, and used the name in their publication of the Gemini image.

(3) The name did not appear in WP until some two years later.

(4) Therefore the name did not spread principally because of its inclusion in WP. Rather, people picked it up from Gemini and APOD. This is in fact the way nicknames usually spread: amateurs read them on professional sites or other amateur sites (like S&T or Astronomical League) and the names gain currency. Enough currency that someone eventually adds them to WP.

(5) There is no evidence -- zilch -- that there is some conspiracy to "use Wikipedia" in a plot to spread such nicknames. They get added here principally because they have currency among amateurs. Once they get here, of course, they get wider currency, but that is only to be expected.

I do not understand why the nicknames bother you, though they clearly do. I will say that you are fighting a losing battle in trying to stifle them: they are everywhere in amateur sources (books, websites, observing programs, etc.) and increasingly in professional sources as well, as professionals begin to understand the importance of engaging the lay audience. The nicknames will continue to spread, with or without WP. For WP to ignore them is simply to stick one's head in the sand.

-- Elphion (talk) 02:54, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"There is no evidence -- zilch -- that there is some conspiracy to "use Wikipedia" in a plot to spread such nicknames." Agreed. Tis is not what I'm saying. Subjectivity is the issue here, and it is harder to differentiate true naming from those just having a lark or seeking notoriety. The reference / cite here doesn't name this, which is the central issue, and breaks WP policy. Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Arianewiki" is clearly not a native speaker of English, and clearly not even remotely familiar with the astronomical literature on this subject. In the past I've seen them declaring that some text was vandalism when added to one article, then adding exactly the same text to another article, then flatly denying that they had done so, so I do not think they have the competence to edit anything.

For those more capable of rational thought:

(outdent again)

Ok, that's an over-reaction. Can we please leave the ad hominems at the door? Being a native speaker of the language has never been a requirement for editing here, and Ariane generally yields on purely linguistic matters. Ariane also has a solid astronomical background and is committed to accuracy in WP. So lets stick to the matters under discussion here. (And I hope Ariane will not feel obligated to respond to each point above -- let's just move on.)

Your references are good evidence that the name is becoming current. We still need to address Ariane's objection that our reference for the name (the Gemini press release) does not in fact use the phrase "Fireworks Galaxy", although it was very likely the source that inspired the name. We can pick another reference (either APOD or any of the several you have provided), but I would still like to preserve a reference to the Gemini press release, or at least to the related PDF.

-- Elphion (talk) 20:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sro23:@KuKu: Umm... 145.15.244.17 I'm an English / French speaker, and for the rest, I just ignore WP:PA, but since this notice[[3]] I now have little choice.

Yet this is become clearly an concerted attack towards me, as seen by the multple-IPs all block-evading or WP:BKFIP socks?) e.g. 193.173.216.91, 2.25.45.249, 81.145.243.195, 148.122.187.2 in this article and/or List of Scottish counties by highest point, as seen by the accusation of the joyless "some kind of retarded vandalism" and now "I do not think they have the competence to edit anything." So what do you want here? Revenge, retribution, me just to get out of way, blood?

Ever since reversion of this edit[[4]], this one[[5]] and this [[6]] by 2.25.45.249, there has been a spate of reverts by multiple IPs. Worryingly, Special:Contributions/2.25.45.249 own block will be lifted on 11th November, possibly starting this WP:EW over again. The reasoning stated by 145.15.244.17 and 2.25.45.249 here[[7]]

Sorry Elphion, this is beyond any over-reaction. (If this is not 'rational thought', then what is?) Arianewiki1 (talk) 03:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

about the dubious-discuss in diameter

If distance is around 22 Mly and apparent size is around 11 arcmin then, unless I'm completely wrong, simple trigonometry says that diameter is around 70000 ly, not 40000 ly.Grausvictor (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the distance was revised up from 10 million ly not long ago (e.g. see this: https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap120109.html), so this is just a hang over from the old distance being used, and should be updated to 70,000 light years KarenLMasters (talk) 15:12, 25 May 2019 (UTC) (PS. I'm a professional researcher in extragalactic astrophysics - not that that matters to wikipedia as it should just use proof not my word, but I say it to provide context to my comment).[reply]
- Agreed, the number in the article is wrong. Unfortunately, I can't find a reliable source to back up the new one. The sources about the revised distance estimate do not mention the size of the galaxy. In addition, I failed to verify the source for the galaxy's apparent size, which could have been used to determine real size with simple trigonometry. So, both true and apparent diameter need new sources before we can move forward. Renerpho (talk) 18:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This has remained unaddressed for well over a year. I now went ahead and marked the article as factually disputed. Renerpho (talk) 07:35, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The topics that need to be addressed are: The galaxy's true diameter (early estimate based on grossly wrong distance, new estimate not available), ~~its apparent diameter (failed verification),~~ its number of stars (based on wrong assumed size), as well as size estimates of structures within NGC 6946 (potentially based on a wrong scale, especially if the source does not state the assumed distance). Renerpho (talk) 07:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a new reference for the apparent size, in the references listed at NED. This is the page that was previously listed as the source, but the old values given here could not be reconciled with that. The new values I just added are considerably larger than the old ones, leading to an even larger true diameter, closer to 100,000 ly. Renerpho (talk) 07:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I think we should contact User:SkyFlubbler about this. The Space Enthusiast (talk) 08:05, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The Space Enthusiast: Please contact whoever you think may be able to help. Renerpho (talk) 08:08, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The input at NED at the lowest section for the diameter lists 26.77 kpc (87,300 light-years). This is based on an estimation by the RC3, which is the same source currently used for Andromeda, the LMC, and SMC.

I should also point out that one should not just blindly use the "apparent diameter" of a galaxy and do the math themselves; NED states in their 'Basic Data' that apparent diameters are just intended for quick-look and are unreferenced. You should look at the section of 'Quick-Look Angular and Physical Diameters' because not only they are referenced, but they state the method being used. In the case of NGC 6946's diameter they used isophote D₂₅, so I think this is what we should use. I will edit out the article to state this out. SkyFlubbler (talk) 09:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the distance, NED lists 32 different distance estimates, by which save from one estimation from 1998, conform to distances of 4.0 to 6.8 Mpc. Asking for my opinion, I would prefer to use the planetary nebula luminosity value from 2008 (6.08 Mpc) because most of the other methodologies use a supernova (SN 2004et) which has varying estimations from different sources. Older estimations use the Tully-Fischer, which is not very reliable. I don't think it matters if there are newer values, because NED lists distance estimates as a priority on top those with lower margins of error, and the PNLF estimation from 2008 is the best one we have. SkyFlubbler (talk) 10:23, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By which, now that I think about it, if others here want to conform to the 2019 estimation of 7.79 (be warned that this value though is quite far off from other studies), you can do the math yourself and use the D₂₅ diameter estimate by RC3 of 995.8 arcsec and adjust it to the distance you prefer, because D₂₅ diameter estimates are distance-independent, anyway. SkyFlubbler (talk) 10:28, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New distance estimate

Need to wait for peer review mind:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1903.09048

different one got through peer review first and is the one we are currently using:

https://academic.oup.com/mnrasl/article-abstract/485/1/L58/5368347

The one we were using was "Distance Results for NGC 6946". NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database. Retrieved 2010-06-18.

super-bubble or superbubble

Is super-bubble refering to superbubble as in the named article? See for reference https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/461/3/2993/2608564 Daalbhaat (talk) 16:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]