Talk:List of largest cosmic structures

Requested move 06 September 2014

The following discussion 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.

---

The result was moved. Nyttend (talk) 13:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

List of largest known cosmic structures → ? – The "known" is not necessary, we can only list structures that we know about, so this would be called List of largest cosmic structures. The intro can specify that we don't know everything about the universe. Possibly call this List of longest cosmic structures as "largest" is not the same as "longest", and the list only specifies one dimension, making this a list of longest. Volumetrically, a long thin filament can be much smaller than a shorter spherical construct, or a long and wide construct. (this assumes "large" primarily deals with size, and not mass, where the most massive structures can be quite different.) -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 11:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose; pretty clearly in the minority here judging from the comments below, but renaming this could give the misimpression that these are the largest known structures to an unknowledgeable reader. Having "known" in the title doesn't hurt anything, so I don't see a reason to move it. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Go for it – Instead of wasting time with a discussion, just do it, per WP:BRD. Dicklyon (talk) 17:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
• I would suggest "List of largest cosmic structures", as in loose terms it covers longest, but longest is much more specific. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
• Move per Graeme. I don't think we need to worry about making the title that specific, but removing "known" makes sense. Sam Walton (talk) 23:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support removing known. List of largest cosmic structures Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

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.

Inclusion criteria?

For some of the claimed structures the sourcing is based on a single paper with very few or no citations. In that case there's no indication of general acceptance within the field that such structures exist. What are the inclusion criteria for this list? --Amble (talk) 16:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The "Giant GRB Ring" paper itself states in the final point of its conclusion: "GRBs are very rare events superimposed on the cosmic web identified by superclusters. Because of this, the ring is probably not a real physical structure." Even the Sloan Great Wall may or may not be a real structure, and everything larger than that should be regarded as highly suspect. --Amble (talk) 22:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this article is in clear need of distinguishing genuine (gravitationally bound, detached from the Hubble flow) structures, the largest of which are large clusters of galaxies, and plausible larger scale associations of objects (which aren't really structures in any very meaningful sense, especially beyond the scale of the Great Wall). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.225.24.20 (talk) 10:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

'Structure' should probably be defined.

I encounter a lot of conspiracy nutters, and general public, who read articles like this and read 'structure' in it's dictionary sense. Not structure in it's astronomical sense. It's probably worth clarifying, and worth clarifying IN the lede to attempt to counter the confusion this re-definition of the word gets from 'science communicators' in the media. Vergilianae (talk) 10:53, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

The Giant Nothing

What exactly is this void? A possible source I found, which also has the figure of 1.8 billion light years, is

• S. Knapton, Mysterious 'supervoid' in space is largest object ever discovered, scientists claim, The Telegraph

Can someone confirm that the void in the list is the void the article talks about? Also, am I understanding this correctly that this is different from the suspected "Eridanus supervoid"? Finally, is there a better source for this than the Telegraph article? -- Toshio Yamaguchi 09:14, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Removal of some of the structures from this list

Quite a bit of the structures on this list very likely don't exist and are just another spurious result. Should these structures be removed from the list, or at least a note added to them saying that their existence is dubious? Examples that come to mind are the Hercules Corona Borealis Great Wall. Multiple sources (I'll list them if necessary) have doubted its existence at this point. And not a single paper has been published on the Giant GRB Ring since its "discovery." I was considering nominating it for deletion in a bit, but before then I'd like to discuss the changes here. Sam-2727 (talk) 05:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

You deleting ANOTHER list again????? My God. Don't Remove them. --THE COLOSSAL GALAXY NAMED IC1101 (talk) 09:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

THE COLOSSAL GALAXY NAMED IC1101, could you clarify your reasoning? Sam-2727 (talk) 01:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Also why do you say "deleting a list again" (paraphrasing). Have I deleted a list like this in the past? Sam-2727 (talk) 01:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm feeling more strongly about this idea, and although this page is not really maintained, it's actually viewed by many people. Pinging recent contributors: TowardsTheLight and Drbogdan for more input. Sam-2727 (talk) 01:58, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sam-2727, THE COLOSSAL GALAXY NAMED IC1101, and TowardsTheLight: (and other editors): FWIW - my current thinking re the list - the current listing seems worthy - even if some listed entries are less supported in the responsible scientific literature than others at the moment - however - if a listed entry is actually found not to exist for some reason in the responsible scientific literature, then it should be removed of course - hppe this helps in some way - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 02:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Drbogdan, I'm particularly talking about the Hercules Corona-Borealis great wall, see: [1]. Although disclaimer this is me so take that with a grain of salt. And this shouldn't influence Wikipedia's listing, as Wikipedia must be supported by reliable sources, but just for future reference there is kind of a general notion that the "Giant GRB Ring" likely doesn't exist as well (but again, since there are no published sources on this, nothing should really change about the Wikipedia article). Sam-2727 (talk) 02:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sam-2727:, seems that, in such instances, the listed entry should be noted as dubious, as you suggested above - that seems entirely ok with me - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! Drbogdan (talk)`

Drbogdan I added the note of doubt and a citation. Also just a heads up I added a short section to Hercules–Corona Borealis Great Wall as well. Hopefully this is neutral enough, given my obvious conflict of interest. Sam-2727 (talk) 04:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sam-2727: a few things:

1. The Giant GRB Ring was discovered in 2015, the latest article about the structure was in 2018 (https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stx2550), and that article somewhat strengthened its reliability.
2. As of a new article on arxiv, there are some major doubts about the paper you cited as a refutation. See https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.03679 Sanya008 (talk) 19:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@Sam-2727: The paper that @Sanya008: just mentioned https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.03679 has serious doubt about your doubt (your paper). I suggest to delete your doubted doubt from the article. --Cosmoca (talk) 19:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Cosmoca, I changed the citation. Sam-2727 (talk) 05:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Sam-2727:! However, the https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.03679 paper also has a subsection about the Ukwatta & Woźniak article. Please, read that section of the paper, too, and remove the Ukwatta & Woźniak doubt, too. --Cosmoca (talk) 12:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Reference to on cosmological principle from 2013 about Huge-LQG

There was a comment added to the list of structures by a user with no other edits.

The comment references an article from 2013 showing the Huge-LQG at 500 Mpc may still be consistent with the cosmological principle.

The Hercules Wall was discovered in 2014 and is twice the size. The reference isn't relevant to the entire list.

Should it be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mobydikc (talk • contribs) 09:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I would argue that the all the quasar "groups" (including my own "Newman LQG") should be removed from this list as there is little or no evidence that observed quasar groups are physical structures (in the sense of tracing mass) rather than temporary coincidental events due to quasar variability on the timescale of surveys. Please see my critique, "LQGs are poor tracers of mass distribution", in the talk page for large quasar groups. However, as my criticism is not published elsewhere (I retired from academia), I will understand if the entries remain on citation grounds. p.r.newman (talk) 13:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

About List of largest voids

Do you think the section of List of largest voids should have its own article? Or is it better off to be in here?

Also, one could also check the figures? The largest one (LOWZ North 13788) has a figure too precise that it is questionable. Not to mention that some entries (might) be duplicates. SkyFlubbler (talk) 10:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Maybe we should discuss LOWZ North 13788 in a more visited location in Wikipedia, such as Wikipedia Talk:Wikiproject Astronomy.--The Space Enthusiast (talk) 07:34, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

The LOWZ North 13788 was converted from parsecs and that is why it is so precise, I might round it up into a less specific value in the future. SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer (talk) 15:59 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Caelum SCl

Where does this ‘910 Mly’ size come from? It does not have any references that actually have anything to do with the size. SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer (talk)

— Preceding undated comment added 16:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

How was the King Ghidorah supercluster's size calculated?

I noticed the addition of this structure to the list a few weeks ago, and it is known as among the largest supercluster known. How was its size calculated? Thanks.--The Space Enthusiast (talk) 18:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

From page 4 of the paper:

In summary, we discovered a supercluster, termed as the KGSc, at z = 0.55. This supercluster not only hosts 15 red-sequence clusters within Δz = 0.1 but also involves multiple other structures, including two massive filaments across a 400 cMpc scale.

400 Mpc is 1.3 billion light-years. SkyFlubbler (talk) 12:41, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

What does the "c" in cMpc mean? The Space Enthusiast (talk) 17:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

It does mean "comoving". Regards—ZaperaWiki44^{(✉/Contribs)} 18:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Rewriting the list

Hello. I wanted to let you know that I have made a workpage (or sandbox) to rewrite the list in order to make it better organized given this list is an overall mess, particuliarly for sizes and dimensions as too many of them are unreferenced and worse even made-up.

Also, I think we should use units of megaparsecs for sizes given most reliable scientific papers has been used parsec (including prefixes) as the standard unit for very large distances and sizes in galactic scale, as briefly stated in Talk:List of largest galaxies#Proposed changes. Regards—ZaperaWiki44^{(✉/Contribs)} 16:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Pavo-Corona Australis supercluster

Could somebody tell me if the Pavo-Corona Australis supercluster is included in SIMBAD? (Centre de Données Stellaires, C.D.S., Strasbourg). I collect all the names and nicknames of astronomical objects beyond the solar system, from Proxima Centauri onward to the most remote superstructures at the outer limits of the universe. DannyJ.Caes (talk) 13:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Quipu

I'm not an expert but it seems like Quipu should be included. †dismas†|^(talk) 13:04, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I was about to add that actually a few days ago, but forgot about it. I'll add it now. Procyon117 (talk) 15:16, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Wrong information?

On the table, it says that the Pisces–Cetus Supercluster Complex (1987) contains the Milky Way, and is the first galaxy filament to be discovered, but the cell above it also lists the Perseus–Pegasus Filament (1985). If the Perseus–Pegasus Filament was discovered in 1985, two years earlier than the Pisces–Cetus Supercluster Complex, shouldn't it be the first galaxy filament to be discovered instead? I am confused. 2001:8003:9100:2C01:2452:1939:F830:8907 (talk) 02:27, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Quipu is not as yet a recognized structure

@SkyFlubbler, you have reverted an edit that removed Draft:Quipu (cosmic structure) as an unverified structure. The article on Quipu was moved to draft on March 2nd following a discussion at WP:Articles_for_deletion/Quipu_(cosmic_structure), then moved back to draft a second time on March 20th and salted after being moved back to main in defiance of the draftification; see the article history. Arguing as you do that Quipu is a real structure and should be included; the issue is just technicality within Wikipedia I view as inappropriate. I am reverting your edit; please explain here why you believe the consensus reached a few weeks ago is just a technicality which should be ignored. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:11, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Comment: in the AfD discussion @SkyFlubbler was the sole Keep vote, all others were either Merge, Draftify or Delete. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:16, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

You might have misinterpreted the point of the AfD discussion. It focuses on whether an article about the structure should exist in Wikipedia, and not whether the subject itself exists or not. The end result is to draftify because of the lack of secondary sources, but keep in mind that none of the points raised in the discussion actually posited that Quipu doesn't exist per se. That is a different matter altogether, which goes against the references. Quipu exists and it has a reference for it, and hence should be in the list, just not linked (similar idea to the King Ghidorah Supercluster, which is mentioned but has no article due to a similar issue). SkyFlubbler (talk) 17:32, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

A single paper which apparently has now passed reviewers but has not yet appeared in press is not established science. Wikipedia is a trailing indicator, not a leading one, and we rely on secondary sources. I suggest you create an RfC if you feel there is grounds to consider something based on a single paper as encyclopedic fact, defacto overriding an AfD concensus. If many others agree with you then, and only then would it be appropriate to include it. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Or post to WT:Physics for additional opinions. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:53, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

"A single paper which apparently has now passed reviewers but has not yet appeared in press is not established science."

That is not the criteria for inclusion in the list. The list takes referenced material, and must pass WP:NASTCRIT, not just because some guy sees it as "not established science." A single reference is enough, and there are many disputed inclusions in the list that are included as well.

"Wikipedia is a trailing indicator, not a leading one, and we rely on secondary sources."

That is not what lists are for. Lists provide information that fulfills a specific set of criteria, in this case the largest cosmic structures.

"I suggest you create an RfC if you feel there is grounds to consider something based on a single paper as encyclopedic fact, defacto overriding an AfD concensus."

Again, this is not the point of the AfD consensus. The topic of whether an article should exist on Wikipedia is completely different on whether an entry should be on the list. You have to once again read the AfD discussion, and if you think we should not include Quipu, then you would apply the same criteria to the dozens of entries in the List of largest stars for example, many of which are only mentioned through primary sources. SkyFlubbler (talk) 18:29, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Create a RfC or post on WT:Physics, since I do not agree with your interpretation, including that of the AfD. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2025 (UTC)