Talk:Galactic bulge

Proofs?

"Most bulges are thought to host a supermassive black hole at their center. Such black holes have never been directly observed, but many indirect proofs exist."

Is "proofs" the best term to use here? It seems to me that a better phrasing would be "but much indirect evidence exists." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Necroforest (talk • contribs) .

mh just about every article about galaxys mentions them, also every major institute in astronomy does, i have my doubts about some of the black hole theory myself, but that there are major and very forcefull phenomena at the centre/basis of plenty if not all galaxys is pretty obvious. as long as the physics on it does not improve, in astronomy when it ever gets obsolete, that would be a good joke:).62.163.248.127 (talk) 23:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stub?

I don't think this article is a stub, since I has multiple sections and content that does not fall into the "irrelevant or incomprehensible" category. I'm looking over it and (although it does need some citations) the article appears to be at least a Start Class article. I'll be going over the article and doing some edits but still even in the current condition it appears to be a Start. Marx01 ^{Tell me about it} 23:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As of right now I'm going to change it to a Start Class. The article doesn't seem to have any errors that would make it a stub, and it is certainly longer than any stub I've seen. Marx01 ^{Tell me about it} 00:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the article does not appear to be completely logical in this. however i think it is pretty simple. eliptical galaxys as well as 'bulges' are the result of mergers, and in cases possibly near mergers (misses etc., orbits), of black holes, a black hole of a great size that has a big starforming activity needs more mergers or mergers with bigger other black holes to loose all shape. a way to check this would be if we could find some remnants of arms about what then probably not be the biggest (those might well be wider then the original arms) elipticals. that if spirals in bulges, including elipticals as i suspect allthough not explicit in the article, are not enough proof. it is an interesting phenomenon, actually i assume there are no galaxys without a black hole, though it might be that a few 'lost' the major one, i would expect such to relatively quickly dissiminate or merge, later on, relatively speaking62.163.248.127 (talk) 23:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do bulges evaporate the way Globular clusters do?

Do bulges evaporate the way Globular clusters do? Just granpa (talk) 01:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To answer this question for folks just visiting; they do not evaporate in the same way. While particular values of the curvature of the universe could allow for dissociation over cosmological timescales, it is unlikely that they disperse like globular clusters as they are gravitationally bound. Disruption from other similarly massive objects can disrupt this, but the larger system will still have a similarly gravitationally bound system over the lifetime of the universe. --Marx01 ^{Tell me about it} 03:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Box- and peanut-shaped bulges

Can someone mention where these bulges fall in the two types of bulges that are mentioned at the moment? Hobbema (talk) 07:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 September 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was:

It was proposed in this section that Bulge (astronomy) be renamed and moved to Galactic bulge.

result:
Moved after no opposition. (non-admin closure) -2pou (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Links: current log • target log • direct move

This is template {{subst:Requested move/end}}

2pou (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bulge (astronomy) → Galactic bulge – Per WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION and WP:CONSISTENT to match similar articles titles such as Galactic disc and Galactic halo Rreagan007 (talk) 21:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. Jerm (talk) 22:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

First sentence

Currently, the first sentence reads:

In astronomy, a galactic bulge (or simply bulge) is a tightly packed group of stars within a larger star formation.

To me this closely overlaps with the definition of a "globular cluster", when the latter is inside a galaxy. How do we distinguish between the two? Praemonitus (talk) 13:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very poor definition of galactic bulge. Indeed the article has problems in a number of places.

I might try something like "In astronomy, a galactic bulge is a broad, approximately ellipsoidal, distribution of stars within the central regions of a galaxy. The term is most commonly used to refer to the extended distribution of stars in the inner parts of a spiral galaxy that are distinct from the stars in the galaxy's disk. Bulges are usually found in spiral and lenticular galaxies."

The rest of the lead suggests, wrongly, that bulges were thought to be to be elliptical galaxies with discs until HST observations. In reality, bulges were known as distinct components of spiral and lenticular galaxies many decades before the HST. TowardsTheLight (talk) 21:53, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]