Talk:Messier 77

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Maciasalfredo10.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Messier 77 - Cetus A

I wouldn't name the Milky Way Sagitarius A, but this isn't the point. They call is Centaurus A yet it refers to the whole galaxy, not just the minor radio source. The same thing is with Virgo A. — Hurricane Devon ( Talk ) 02:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

You should not rename galaxies to the names of radio sources, they are not the same thing. Radio sources are often associated with galaxies, but they aren't the galaxy itself. -- Curps 02:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Most professional astronomers call this galaxy NGC 1068, not Cetus A. It's the exact opposite of the situation for Centaurus A, which few astronomers refer to as NGC 5128. Some other galaxies, like NGC 1316 / Fornax A, are referred to by both names. GeorgeJBendo 14:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This galaxy could be populated to capacity and partly computronium, or an artifact. See http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/7029.asp 198.96.187.2 (talk) 00:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible to provide a citation for the diameter of Messier 77? Also, should there be an entire subheading for "X-Ray Source" since there is only one sentence? Or is there more information that has not been discovered yet? Maciasalfredo10 (talk) 08:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

What are the details of the emission from Messier 77? Does the x-ray emission an indicate any unique properties of the galaxy? Also, you should specify the radio sources separately from the name of the galaxy; they are two different things. Bmaclean (talk) 18:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Messier 77. 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/20110722021432/http://blackholes.stardate.org/directory/factsheet.php?p=M77 to http://blackholes.stardate.org/directory/factsheet.php?p=M77

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) 00:28, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

New ALMA observations of dust orbiting central back hole

Appears in this paper:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/aaa8df/meta

©Geni (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

HIP 12668

I have removed some recent edits which added mention of HIP 12668. The reason is I fail to see the relevance of a Milky Way star that is bright and happens to be near to M77 when viewed from Earth. Furthermore, the addition of this fact then broke an existing reference elsewhere in the article. 84.93.167.157 (talk) 22:10, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the text you removed contained irrelevant information. It was also worded a bit too informally, I think. But it might be worth mentioning the star and its magnitude, since it could help casual observers locate the galaxy.PopePompus (talk) 22:57, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Mistake in the neutrino section

The statement that NGC1068 is only the second observed extra-terrestrial neutrino source is incorrect. IceCube has previously reported on the detection of neutrinos from the source TXS0506. This was published in two papers in Science, and is nicely covered in the wikipedia article on that source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TXS_0506%2B056 This should be changed to say third source. For information purposes, I am a member of the IceCube Collaboration, so not a disinterested observer, but this is well documented in the other article. - Spencer Klein, Berkeley 2601:644:600:65F0:E864:AF59:1AC1:C1C8 (talk) 04:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)