Talk:Segue 1
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
SIMBAD reference/GC or dSph
[edit]Could the link to the actual SIMBAD results be linked, rather than the SIMBAD homepage? Also, though the original discovery paper was unsure whether to classify Segue 1 as a dwarf galaxy or a globular cluster, now that the velocity dispersion has been measured and mass determined, it is not considered to be a globular cluster. See the more recent reference in the article that reports spectroscopy. The last couple of paragraphs of the Belokurov note that if the objects in their paper are dark matter dominated (which they are now measured to be), then they are dwarf galaxies. James McBride (talk) 19:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- The result of Geha, 2009, at al may be spurious due to tidal disruption and contamination. It is actually disputed in another paper. Ruslik_Zero 20:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- You are correct. Published results remain inconclusive. Someone who has done work on Segue 1 indicated in person that there are clearer results, but it does not seem that these have been published, so that does not belong here. I would still like to see the actual SIMBAD results linked though. A search of "Segue 1" on SIMBAD turns up the result that the object was not found. James McBride (talk) 00:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- The search is case sensitive. You should try "SEGUE". In addition Segue 1 is not a unique object: Bootes II, Coma Berenices and Segue 2 are other possible debris of SEG. Ruslik_Zero 17:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- I figured it out last night. It does not like having a space between "segue" and "1" for some reason. My point was that it is not useful to simply link to SIMBAD in the citation and say "results for SEGUE 1" when searching the phrase "SEGUE 1" on SIMBAD did not turn up any results. James McBride (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- The search is case sensitive. You should try "SEGUE". In addition Segue 1 is not a unique object: Bootes II, Coma Berenices and Segue 2 are other possible debris of SEG. Ruslik_Zero 17:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- In the meantime (Simon et al, 2010) the concerns about tidal disruption and contamination have been addressed. I wonder if the article should edited to downgrade those concerns given the new research? Pmokeefe (talk) 13:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- You are correct. Published results remain inconclusive. Someone who has done work on Segue 1 indicated in person that there are clearer results, but it does not seem that these have been published, so that does not belong here. I would still like to see the actual SIMBAD results linked though. A search of "Segue 1" on SIMBAD turns up the result that the object was not found. James McBride (talk) 00:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)