This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
On 21 December 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved from TON 618 to Ton 618. The result of the discussion was moved. |
I read your article S50014+81 and believe it is the largest.But when I read about TON618 Iwas amazed that so large!
AY87 ( talk) 16:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
In articles like this, the distance given, 10.4 bn ly, is misleading, its distance from earth now is about 3x that. This applies to all Wikipedia articles. Why isn't the expansion of the Universe taken into account? 37.219.201.172 ( talk) 07:07, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
BOth or either of those would be good. Google can't seem to find either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:E414:3A01:1846:CE27:8F89:C3B6 ( talk) 07:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
The distance given is that of Light-travel distance. The link given for distance only points to the article but not to the specific distance meant, that is really useless. Ra-raisch ( talk) 23:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) ASUKITE 16:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
TON 618 → Ton 618 – "Ton" is an abbreviation of Tonantzintla, not an initialism. See also SIMBAD. SevenSpheresCelestia ( talk) 21:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi, The absolute magnitude of −30.7 is difficult to understand. We need to have a comparaison. e.g. how it would look like if it was at the center of the Milky Way. Thanks, Yann ( talk) 10:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
hlo 2600:387:F:4915:0:0:0:4 ( talk) 21:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi, how does it works to create a new page with the same name? Riccardo Noe ( talk) 14:04, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. Following a lengthy period of discussion, I would say there just about consensus for this, and no killer policy arguments against. Number 5 7 21:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Ton 618 → TON 618 – No sources besides SIMBAD uses this version of the name. Peer-reviewed papers, including the paper that gave the black hole it's mass estimate, have used the capitalised version of the name. To add further, NASA uses the capitalisation as well. The name being capitalised does not imply an acronym or initialism. Wikipedia typically uses the most commonly-used name, not necessarily the correct name. Faren29 ( talk) 13:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Natg 19 ( talk) 22:57, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
There are a few papers that actally use the lowercase version, and in general the Tonantzintla Catalogue, such as Ton 1 for Pismis 25.
Implying Wikipedia uses the most used name and not the correct one, I can make a case against it with WHL0137-LS. But for this case, both uses of "TON" and "Ton" are not strictly wrong; it is just up to you if you will prefer one over the other. You can make a case of "TON" as used by NED and some papers, but other papers use "Ton" and the original Tonantzintla Catalogue as well.
For context, here is this paper that uses "Ton 1" for Pismis 25, and this paper that uses "Ton 2" for Pismis 26. SkyFlubbler ( talk) 12:40, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
I do see various issues already raised about the sourcing, but reading this, it seems that the article relies too heavily on The Astrophysical Journal and derivatives. The article does not convey the debatable and speculative nature of much of the content. Emerald Gibb ( talk) 19:40, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
On 21 December 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved from TON 618 to Ton 618. The result of the discussion was moved. |
I read your article S50014+81 and believe it is the largest.But when I read about TON618 Iwas amazed that so large!
AY87 ( talk) 16:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
In articles like this, the distance given, 10.4 bn ly, is misleading, its distance from earth now is about 3x that. This applies to all Wikipedia articles. Why isn't the expansion of the Universe taken into account? 37.219.201.172 ( talk) 07:07, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
BOth or either of those would be good. Google can't seem to find either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:E414:3A01:1846:CE27:8F89:C3B6 ( talk) 07:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
The distance given is that of Light-travel distance. The link given for distance only points to the article but not to the specific distance meant, that is really useless. Ra-raisch ( talk) 23:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) ASUKITE 16:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
TON 618 → Ton 618 – "Ton" is an abbreviation of Tonantzintla, not an initialism. See also SIMBAD. SevenSpheresCelestia ( talk) 21:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi, The absolute magnitude of −30.7 is difficult to understand. We need to have a comparaison. e.g. how it would look like if it was at the center of the Milky Way. Thanks, Yann ( talk) 10:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
hlo 2600:387:F:4915:0:0:0:4 ( talk) 21:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi, how does it works to create a new page with the same name? Riccardo Noe ( talk) 14:04, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. Following a lengthy period of discussion, I would say there just about consensus for this, and no killer policy arguments against. Number 5 7 21:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Ton 618 → TON 618 – No sources besides SIMBAD uses this version of the name. Peer-reviewed papers, including the paper that gave the black hole it's mass estimate, have used the capitalised version of the name. To add further, NASA uses the capitalisation as well. The name being capitalised does not imply an acronym or initialism. Wikipedia typically uses the most commonly-used name, not necessarily the correct name. Faren29 ( talk) 13:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Natg 19 ( talk) 22:57, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
There are a few papers that actally use the lowercase version, and in general the Tonantzintla Catalogue, such as Ton 1 for Pismis 25.
Implying Wikipedia uses the most used name and not the correct one, I can make a case against it with WHL0137-LS. But for this case, both uses of "TON" and "Ton" are not strictly wrong; it is just up to you if you will prefer one over the other. You can make a case of "TON" as used by NED and some papers, but other papers use "Ton" and the original Tonantzintla Catalogue as well.
For context, here is this paper that uses "Ton 1" for Pismis 25, and this paper that uses "Ton 2" for Pismis 26. SkyFlubbler ( talk) 12:40, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
I do see various issues already raised about the sourcing, but reading this, it seems that the article relies too heavily on The Astrophysical Journal and derivatives. The article does not convey the debatable and speculative nature of much of the content. Emerald Gibb ( talk) 19:40, 10 June 2023 (UTC)