Talk:Wings of a Butterfly Nebula

Disputed?

Okay, I'll bite, what is disputed? Flehmen 16:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

The history is weird. It was a decent just-above-stub article and then the person who started it turned it into a single line. The nebula is a former sun-like star so the article was inaccurate but I wouldn't call it a dispute. I re-expanded it. Marskell 16:04, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Kay, saved me the time. Flehmen 17:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually there has been some speculation and there might even be a few papers floating about with the idea that bipolar nebulae are associated with YOUNG stars, not stars at the end of their lives, as implied by Marskell. So, saying it's a former star might be misleading, if not accurate. I might poke around for the articles I was reading once upon a time, at some point. Just a point ot ponder. Mgmirkin 20:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge? (Planetary Nebula M2-9)

I've proposed a merger between this article and Planetary Nebula M2-9 since they both describe the same object. But they both seem to have slightly different information. Quite possibly complementary information which could be used to make a superior article to either on its own. This formation is referred to by many names: Butterfly Nebula (but that gets it confused with, I'm wanting to say NGC 6302? or some other "Butterfly Nebula" on Wikipedia), Twin Jet(s) Nebula, M2-9 and Planetary Nebula M2-9. Currently Twin Jet Nebula, and M2-9 already redirect to Planetary Nebula M2-9, it's my opinion that this one should be merged with that one since both contain good info, and likely this one should redirect there too, with a listing of all names it's known by... And redirects from those names should point there as well. However, since it's known by so many names, it should be decided which name is the most applicable or widely used and go with that. Let's discuss. Mgmirkin 20:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Cleaned up a couple things. 1) changed reference to Planetary nebula into reference to Protoplanetary nebula, as this is, I believe the correct term. Let's not get them confused. Also cleaned up the 'See Also' section to removed reference to other bipolar nebulae I'd added previously, instead, it now links to Bipolar nebula, Bipolar outflow, Planetary nebula, Protoplanetary nebula. The Bipolar nebula article lists all the same bipolar/protoplanetary nebulae, so this is more of a tidying up thing and a second thought adfter having initially added the other nebulae. Anyway, for more info on why things were cleaned up the way they were, see the talk page on Talk:Planetary Nebula M2-9. Again, I reiterate, that these articles should really be merged (probably quite painlessly) into one more informative article on the same structure, and then have all roads lead to that article (which ever of the two namespaces is preferable). That would be much preferable to having to update two articles independently with the same edits. Mgmirkin 16:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Since nobody really been talking, I'm going to assume this article isn't much being edited or monitored, so I'll Be Bold and do the merge myself. I'll merge Wings of a Butterfly Nebula into Planetary Nebula M2-9, and mold this namespace into a redirect to that article. Hopefully this is fairly non-controversial, as M2-9 and Twin Jet Nebula both already redirect to Planetary Nebula M2-9. Mgmirkin 02:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)