Talk:Galaxy morphological classification

Proposed merge from Disc galaxy

The article Disc galaxy is just a one sentence definition that I think gets better context in this general article about galaxy classification. I don't see how Disc galaxy could be expanded beyond a definition without duplicating other related articles; we already have an article for the disc component of the galaxy: Disc (galaxy). Since Wikipedia is not a dictionary, I think there's a clear case to merge into this article. Forbes72 (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose, Disc galaxy should be merged into Disc (galaxy) rather than merged into Galaxy morphological classification (As seen here). Galaxy morphological classification talks about the types of classifications of Galaxies, not the actual types. Disc galaxy and Disc (galaxy), one talks about the type of galaxy and the other talks about it as a feature. Most disk galaxies are actually spirals and are usually never just plain Disk Galaxies making it somewhat redundant? Davidbuddy9 (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion on Disc galaxy seemed to indicate consensus was against merging "Disc (galaxy)" and "Disc galaxy". The editors there agreed that "disc" was a morphological classification of some type, as opposed to a feature.(but it's unclear to me which system of classification is being referred to) Disc as morphological type also shows up in the Galaxy template. Is "disc" just an ad-hoc classification? There's no sources for "Disc galaxy". Forbes72 (talk) 20:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I removed the merger hatnote from August 2015 here and here. There is no agreement or initiative to merge Disc galaxy (type) with Disc (galaxy) (component) or with Galaxy morphological classification (this aricle). Instead I'll post it on WT:AST (link to post to be followed) to ask a wider audience, OK? Rfassbind – talk 10:51, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Galaxy morphological classification. 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://archive.is/20121205083205/http://sings.stsci.edu/Publications/sings_poster.html to http://sings.stsci.edu/Publications/sings_poster.html

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) 07:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Van Den Bergh Luminosity Class

The article doesn't mention the Van Den Bergh luminosity class and I don't see it mentioned elsewhere on Wikipedia.[1][2][3] Could that be covered? Praemonitus (talk) 00:43, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Black hole

Susu 2405:205:C8E3:96BC:182A:DC0F:AF0C:55B7 (talk) 11:21, 11 January 2023 (UTC)