The article List of names for the Milky Way was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 27 March 2024 with a consensus to merge the content into Milky Way. If you find that such action has not been taken promptly, please consider assisting in the merger instead of re-nominating the article for deletion. To discuss the merger, please use this talk page. Do not remove this template after completing the merger. A bot will replace it with ((afd-merged-from)). |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Milky Way article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 20 days |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Milky Way has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This level-3 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
Other talk page banners | |||||||
|
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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 Data for this article dates back to 1990s, so it is very much out of date and no actual link to research but reference to some article, this isn't sufficient to to considered definitive or even accurate data.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
References
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)
More room, more material can be preserved. Serendipodous 23:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
((Edit semi-protected))
template. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)This also 202.51.89.223 (talk) 02:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)