Talk:Local Void

Untitled
Hi. User 65.94.171.217 reported an incomplete List of void galaxies (Pisces A and Pisces B). I think is a mistake. By now, Pisces A & Pisces B have left the Local Void and they are part of the Local Volume as it's described in the papers: "HST IMAGING OF THE LOCAL VOLUME DWARF GALAXIES PISCES A AND B: PROTOTYPES FOR LOCAL GROUP DWARFS" (doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/827/2/89), and "A COMPREHENSIVE ARCHIVAL SEARCH FOR COUNTERPARTS TO ULTRA-COMPACT HIGH-VELOCITY CLOUDS: FIVE LOCAL VOLUME DWARF GALAXIES"  (doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/95). Void galaxy are, for example, NGC 6503 or ESO 461-36. Best regards.--Mylkomeda (talk) 13:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

New study
Just saw mention of a new study mapping the Local Void (got there from space.com article. Mentioning it here so perhaps someone capable of understanding its implications (I'm not) can see if it's worth adding to the article. Schazjmd   (talk)  16:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merger of five galaxies
Five galaxies were recently proposed by for merger to this article, without any explanation but possibly due to lack of independent notability. These are NGC 6789, NGC 6503, NGC 7077, Pisces B, and Pisces A. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 15:01, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I requested the 5 articles about those galaxies to be merged in to the article about local void due to the page that contains the list of void galaxies is empty and those 5 articles are a stub. Although I had them merged by myself. 4lepheus B4ron (talk) 07:00, 2 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - All these galaxies are notable (NGC 6503:, NGC 6789: , NGC 7077 (aka Mrk 900): , Pisces A and B: ) and the current state of their articles isn't a valid reason to be merged. --C messier (talk) 12:53, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with C messier. Kujast (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per C messier. New user seems to be randomly nominating mergers without following procedures all over the place and in several astronomy lists -- 65.92.244.151 (talk) 23:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)