Editing Talk:2851: Messier Objects
|
Please sign your posts with ~~~~ |
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 63: | Line 63: | ||
Okay, so right now where it says there are no Messier-numbered galaxies named after trees or squirrels, it says "Actual Citation Needed". I would assume the only proof of this would be to cite the actual list to note no squirrels or trees in it (squirrels obviously, I feel like trees would be plausible). So, how do we do an actual citation? Link to the list somewhere reliable and put a footnote like on Wikipedia? | Okay, so right now where it says there are no Messier-numbered galaxies named after trees or squirrels, it says "Actual Citation Needed". I would assume the only proof of this would be to cite the actual list to note no squirrels or trees in it (squirrels obviously, I feel like trees would be plausible). So, how do we do an actual citation? Link to the list somewhere reliable and put a footnote like on Wikipedia? | ||
| β | Also, I feel like there's an intentional joke that the first object available to Messier, himself, is numbered as low as | + | Also, I feel like there's an intentional joke that the first object available to Messier, himself, is numbered as low as 206. Like logically he'd be 1 (or 0, if he wanted to keep actual numbers for actual celestial bodies) or 111. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 05:04, 11 November 2023 (UTC) |
:Numbered in the order of being first observed, from the moment he set his mind to it? And there were no mirrors (that weren't probably concave and mounted in his telescope*) in direct view for the first couple of hundred observations? His notepad given zero, perhaps? What of his pen(cil)? The non-telescopic mirror would have been 205, perhaps, or lower, depending on how he came upon it. | :Numbered in the order of being first observed, from the moment he set his mind to it? And there were no mirrors (that weren't probably concave and mounted in his telescope*) in direct view for the first couple of hundred observations? His notepad given zero, perhaps? What of his pen(cil)? The non-telescopic mirror would have been 205, perhaps, or lower, depending on how he came upon it. | ||
:<nowiki>*</nowiki> Hmmm... Whereupon is numbered the telescope he initially used? Unless using some special "need a full, all-round, unoccluded view" rule as part of his internal process of concluding a valid observation. | :<nowiki>*</nowiki> Hmmm... Whereupon is numbered the telescope he initially used? Unless using some special "need a full, all-round, unoccluded view" rule as part of his internal process of concluding a valid observation. | ||
