Talk:TON 618

TON618
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)


 * WOW🥹 2601:5CA:C280:64B0:F466:C898:AC44:9621 (talk) 00:21, 11 June 2024 (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)


 * It would be more accurate and complete to state both the estimated age of the object as well as its distance from earth including the expansion of space. 66.241.75.133 (talk) 18:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Image? Spectrum?
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)


 * ✔ Done, took image from SDSS9. SkyFlubbler (talk) 04:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

distance
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 article says it all: light-travel distance is the distance its light as we see it has travelled to reach us.


 * Despite the correctness and deeper underlying concept of present comoving distance, that is, distance plus taken into account Hubble's Law, I would always prefer the light travel distance.


 * Because it is quite simple, easy to understand, and more accessible to the general public in understanding than the present comoving distance. Plus, a vast majority of articles always refer to an object's light-travel distance. I have never heard of present comoving distance being used outside of technical cosmological textbooks.


 * Also, specific to TON 618, yes it has a present comoving distance of 18 billion ly, but how are we so sure it even exists? The quasar may have already fizzled out at the present day - what we are seeing is its ghost while it's still active. It is incorrect to refer to the present comoving distance of a quasar if you are not even sure if it still exists. You are pointing to the distance of a burnt out quasar. At least in light-travel distance, we can easily grasp the context - the quasar as we see it 10 billion years ago. SkyFlubbler (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 21 December 2021

 * 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: 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)
 * Support not an acronym In ictu oculi (talk) 22:05, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Neutral; didn't thought of this for a while. This is actually the designation in SIMBAD, but in the NASA/IPAC Database "TON 0618" is used. One can just choose which is the correct one. SkyFlubbler (talk) 11:23, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * A further addition is that the paper by Shemmer et al. here (the reference for the 66 billion  SMBH), "TON 618" has been also used. The variant used by SIMBAD hasn't been used in most papers about this object. SkyFlubbler (talk) 11:30, 26 December 2021 (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.

Luminosity
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)


 * The article already states this - "as brilliantly as 140 trillion times that of the Sun." This is already a fair comparison for the viewer and we don't need to have another, pretty redundant ones that would make it difficult to understand. How would it look like if placed at the center of the galaxy would be even more confusing, since 26,000 light-years is not easy to visualize in a reader's mind, and you would have to account foreground extinction which would complicate stuff.


 * If you go so far as to read about this article and have interest in black holes in general, it is safe to assume that at least somehow you already know the concept of absolute magnitude. SkyFlubbler (talk) 23:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

homologation page
Hi, how does it works to create a new page with the same name? Riccardo Noe (talk) 14:04, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 3 June 2022

 * 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: 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)


 * Agree. TON should be stay for TONantzintla Catalogue of Blue Stars, (source #5) as mentioned here. Windino  [ Rec ]  19:44, 3 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)


 * Perhaps I was incorrect about no sources using the lowercase version but I still hold on to the opinion that the capitalised version is still the most commonly used and referred-to version of the name (and NASA's database using TONantzintla) and in this case where neither name is necessarily wrong, it would be most suitable to revert back to the capitalised version. Faren29 (talk) 13:54, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we should stick to whatever the original source claims it to be. If the original catalogue implies a lowercase format, then that's what we should use. The uppercase version seems to be more popular (in terms of people who have made videos and images of it, referring to it as the largest black hole) but the lowercase version was clearly what the original author intended. ApeirogonYotta (talk) 16:55, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The original catalogue does not use either "Ton" or "TON". In fact, if you look at the top of each column of numbered objects, they only use "T". Does that mean we should use "T 618", despite it being not recognised by anyone? More so, I've noticed that "Ton" is used in generally older sources, whilst "TON" has appeared more frequently in newer sources. Faren29 (talk) 23:23, 10 June 2022 (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.
 * Support. We need to decide this and move on. Following the last RM there have been a number of bold moves. We are a general encyclopedia, and it seems to me that the capitalisation proposed is more approachable to the general reader, who is likely more familiar with NASA usage than with research papers. The other names should of course be redirects and mentioned in the text. Andrewa (talk) 19:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose: The use of TON would imply it is an initialism. However, it appears to be an abbreviation of Tonantzintla, so Ton is thus less ambiguous. I also found a pair of papers that use 'Ton 618', so it's not just Simbad. Praemonitus (talk) 21:35, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that pointed out the same thing during an earlier move discussion (above). Praemonitus (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe the usage of "TON" came from NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database, as seen here and is more popularly used than the non-capitalised version, mainly due to the fact that Wikipedia used the capitalisation until December 2021. ApeirogonYotta (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. A substantial majority of sources use the capitalized version, as a quick Google Scholar search shows, and that's all that really matters. Perhaps the original source said something else, perhaps a minority of sources do not capitalize it, and perhaps the capitalization is simply wrong—regardless, "Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized", and most sources do indeed capitalize TON 618. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Excessive reliance on one source
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)


 * Could you please clarify further what are the "debatable and speculative" content in the article? SkyFlubbler (talk) 19:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Hmm. One journal does not have just one author, and this is a topic in astrophysics. Furthermore, most sources are peer-reviewed articles. Nerd271 (talk) 15:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)