Talk:Small Magellanic Cloud

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Small Magellanic Cloud 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.

Article policies

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

Radius

Again, radius and diameter are treated as the same, but radius is half a diameter. Radius entry should be 5,000 to 7,000 ly not 10,000 to 14,000 DaMatriX 20:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fiction

The L from the LMC in the fiction reference stands for Lesser, as in Lesser Magellanic Cloud (as the LMC would be the Greater Magellanic Cloud).

You can even see ADB used the same NASA image of the Cloud as seen in this article as a backdrop for their game cover. --Nerroth 21:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is totally inappropriate. The "in fiction" section only deals with the Star Fleet Universe and the section exceeds the size of the one in the SFU article! This is not Small Magellanic Cloud (Star Fleet Universe) article. SFU should only be a footnote. 132.205.44.134

Fair enough - I've created a SFU-specific article - which someone wants to kill in its cradle... --Nerroth 22:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MMC

What about the Mini-Magellanic Cloud? --myselfalso 06:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mass Error

The article mentions an approximate mass of the SMC, but the cited reference does not list this as the total mass of this satellite galaxy, but only that 6.5 billion solar masses is the likely mass of the SMC's dark matter only. This does not include the visible object mass.

The ADS abstract says, "We suggest that the dark mater [sic] halo of the SMC is likely to have the initial total mass and core radius as large as, or larger than, 6.5 × 109Msolar and 3.2 kpc, respectively. We discuss limitations of the present model in estimating the total mass of the SMC."

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.395..342B

LoneStar77 (talk) 04:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Light-years from Earth

How many light years is the Small Magellanic Cloud from Earth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.16.169 (talk) 00:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LMC & SMC collision

[1][2] -- apparently the two collided 300 million years ago. -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 15:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SMC is clearly a Dwarf irregular galaxy

Not sure why in the article it says that the SMC may be a Magellanic type dwarf spiral galaxy. it's explained in This source that the galaxy is clearly irregular with no signs of a bar structure. I'd like community input before i remove this:It is classified as either a dwarf irregular galaxy or as a Magellanic type dwarf spiral galaxy. i'll probably remove the part about where it says it may be a dwarf spiral galaxy.--Anderson I'm Willing To Help 01:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pulsar

According to Bibcode:1994ApJ...423L..43K/doi:10.1086/187231 PSR B0042-73.5/PSR J0045-7319 is the first pulsar known in the SMC -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 13:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Small Magellanic Cloud (Digitized Sky Survey 2).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Small Magellanic Cloud (Digitized Sky Survey 2).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Radius or diameter? Internal consistency.

A diameter of 7,000 light years at a range of 200,000 light years would have an apparent diameter of about 2 degrees, not 4.2 degrees as stated. Either the first instance of 'diameter' should be 'radius' or 4.2 degrees is wrong.Henrimarieraymond (talk) 18:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NASA appears to think the diameter is 15,000 light years. https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap050617.html

Henrimarieraymond (talk) 21:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, much too small. 7,000 pc is a radius at best, which is a fairly pointless thing to quote for a system that is far from spherical, or even round as projected on the sky. The line-of-sight depth is generally thought to be considerably larger than any of the visible dimensions. Lithopsian (talk) 19:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adjusted it to 18,900 light-years, based on data from NED. SkyFlubbler (talk) 18:00, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect/inaccurate mass listing for the SMC.

Hello. I have read through the paper listed as the source for the mass claim in this article, and I do not believe it makes the same claim as this Wikipedia article. This paper is discussing the mass of the dark matter halo of the SMC, not the total mass. However, I could be misunderstanding the paper (hence posting here).

Limitlez1 (talk) 21:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Butler's star (somewhere in the Small Magellanic Cloud, but WHERE exactly?)

Perhaps this could be an interesting item for the article: the existence of a certain flare star in the SMC, known as Butler's star. Alas, no coordinates (of that star) seem to be known, only the name Butler's star (in the SMC). Thus mentioned in Sky Catalogue 2000.0, Volume 2: Double Stars, Variable Stars, and Nonstellar Objects (1985), more precisely in the chapter Glossary of Selected Astronomical Names, page xlvi. DannyCaes (talk) 16:11, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks bdijkstra and AstroLynx! (Dutch Wikipedia). The coordinates of Butler's star are 1:00:18 / -72°44'35". This star is also known as BT Tucanae, HD 6090, and a whole truckload of other catalog numbers. DannyCaes (talk) 11:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that although it lies in the direction of the SMC, it appears to be a foreground star in our own galaxy. Lithopsian (talk) 17:22, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Lithopsian! DannyCaes (talk) 17:55, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]