Talk:NGC 1365

You know...

Since this galaxy is the closest in appearance to our native Milky Way galaxy, shouldn't we be examining this galaxy the most out of all other galaxies in the universe for life(Kind of basing off of Anthro theory here.)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.207.44 (talk) 01:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

For that matter, shouldn't there be a full photo of it at optical wavelengths? Currently there are two photos, one showing the full galaxy in UV, the other showing only part of it.--99.230.239.23 (talk) 20:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The Name

I've done the reasearch. The Great Barred Spiral Galaxy is the official name for NGC 1365. — Hurricane Devon (Talk) File:Euro symbol.png 18:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

It is NOT!--Jyril 13:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

When i said (I've done the reasearch.) I ment I got this info from my books. Two of my astronomy books clearly state that NGC 1365 is called the Great Barred Spiral. This or my books are not right. I copyed the page from my books to show you.

• [1] This book is called Astronomy A visual Guide. By Mark A. Garlick.

• [2] This book is National Geographic Encyclopedia of Space. By Linda K. Glover (with Andrew Ghaikin, Patricia S. Daniels, Andrea Gianopoulos, & Jonathan T. Malay. Foreward by Buzz Aldrin).

If this dosn't convince you NGC 1365 is called Great Barred Spiral, then I give up. — Hurricane Devon (Talk) File:Euro symbol.png 21:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, it doesn't. ;) These books are hardly scientific, even though Mark Garlick is a professional astronomer. Plus, the article name = the most used name -policy holds. But I don't mind mentioning the name in the article.--Jyril 21:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move, along with all the others. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 07:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

[creating discussion section, didn't look up template for it Gene Nygaard 17:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)]

• Oppose. Keep the current name; redirect from proposed name already exists. No sufficient reason given, usage in galaxy article is not particularly relevant factor. Gene Nygaard 17:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• SUPPORT change the name to the real name. It is just a catalogue entry after all 132.205.45.110 19:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• SUPPORT - I an an amateur astronomer and I can say that people usuusaly just call it by it's catalog name. Many DSO have same kind of a name (and sometimes 2 or 3 names), but just a small part of these names are widely accepted. So, I believe that only widely accepted names, as Andromeda galaxy should be use instead of catalog numbers. --Ante Perkovic 12:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

About 1957C

Why can i barely find anything about 1957C? I can't even find the date it was documented like the other supernovae here, if anyone can find the date please tell me and put it in the article, i can't find it. Also this is my favourite galaxy :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orion64WasTaken (talk • contribs) 12:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)