Talk:Huge-LQG

Name of the article.

Huge-LQG referenced by NS and RAS Martin451 (talk) 04:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• I have moved the alternate names from the notes to the lead itself explicitly, these are not so cumbersome we need to hide them against normal naming procedure. We should probably also move the article to Huge Large Quasar Group, but I won't push that now. μηδείς (talk) 02:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The name Huge-LQG is used in the original article, and most articles about it, so I would say it is currently the correct name. However your suggestion of moving it to Huge Large Quasar Group would aid in the readability of the article. So I am neutral about this proposal, if you request a move, I will not oppose it. Martin451 (talk) 19:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think it should be moved, but not strongly enough to argue over it. I am curious if there are other good precedents for comparison? In general, outside astronomy as a subject, I think wikipedia is better of not using abbreviations unless they are notable as such. μηδείς (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

This article's present title is okay, because there are few articles about galaxy "groups". Articles about the larger galaxy "clusters" generally contain identifying numbers. The most prominent group of galaxies is our own Local group, so since there are few examples to compare with, the title of this article may remain as it is (Huge-LQG) and may even become a primary example in the future. – Paine (Climax!)  07:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Link is down

http://www.star.uclan.ac.uk/~rgc/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.159.116.93 (talk) 18:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Cosmological principle

Writing as a professional cosmologist, I'm afraid that most of the information contained in the section titled "Cosmological principle" is simply wrong. Primarily this is due to a misinterpretation of the results in the paper by Yadav et al, and a misunderstanding of what constitutes a cosmological structure. Unfortunately, these misconceptions are also implicitly present in the paper by Clowes et al; nevertheless, there is no reason that the Wikipedia article should perpetuate them. I intend to edit this section to reflect the actual professional understanding of the situation. However, I shall put the criticisms of Clowes et al and their interpretation of the Huge-LQG in a separate section for now, with appropriate references. At some point in the future, it may be considered appropriate to merge these two sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACosmologist (talk • contribs) 08:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC) This comment seems biased. If there was indeed some editing done by this person I believe this invalidates what has been written here.2601:482:457F:E2DB:95FA:1C3E:28FB:2171 (talk) 14:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Criticism

I have also added a section on criticism of the claimed discovery of the Huge-LQG and its interpretation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACosmologist (talk • contribs) 10:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I've created a new section, I may propose that it will be in a different subject Johndric Valdez (talk) 09:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Malware Link Removal

• Potentially Malicious Domain: (EXPLOIT, RBN Known Malvertiser IP 22)
• hxxp://www.dailygalaxy.com/
• https://www.virustotal.com/de/url/06f7d7c43c549e5e370a1e64d961bbbb9f4be55c29111d41e93ae9bb66489f23/analysis/1374427632/
• JS/Exploit-Blacole.cw
• https://www.virustotal.com/de/file/5ea1609b649e14ccfd84fec0d7e9d13cb0f885876f0ef5fae0407d23490ecddc/analysis/1374428349/
• https://www.virustotal.com/de/file/192346fedd2cc52353f89fd93fe1da383b6fa8a969c4c27f1fa663d4a40c3ae4/analysis/1374428351/
• https://www.virustotal.com/de/file/2656324fdda8179413cf416bd559e5f6f13864886a6d31907928e6334e64ebfa/analysis/1374428355/
• https://www.virustotal.com/de/file/a9dc933ca440b54c82be1fc9a71df252cf738ca3d908814adc656d9ffcc7c6ed/analysis/1374428365/
• https://www.virustotal.com/de/file/42430671c0fd1332eeb990373a1707da334520e2bae48d1dc9ee6df47b728125/analysis/1374428367/
• https://www.virustotal.com/de/file/8eb65132b441b07193c467814570e2c0959ceff07e35149247f531dde514782f/analysis/1374428377/
• REFERENCE: http://jsunpack.jeek.org/?report=49695ac9748fc84c3953dd8db54a661f52fd8be4
• http://urlquery.net/report.php?id=3902995
• SEE ALSO:
• http://quttera.com/detailed_report/www.dailygalaxy.com
• http://sitecheck.sucuri.net/results/www.dailygalaxy.com
• http://www.UnmaskParasites.com/security-report/?page=www.dailygalaxy.com

--Gary Dee 18:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

New larger structure

A report in November 19, 2013 has claimed a new structure, 10 billion light-years across, almost two and a half times larger than the Huge-LQG. Here's the link:

http://news.discovery.com/space/galaxies/universes-largest-structure-is-a-cosmic-conundrum-131119.htm

It has no name, but I've decided to name it the Hercules-Corona Borealis Great Wall since it says that the structure was found in the constellations of Hercules and Corona Borealis. It is more than 2 1/2 times larger than the Huge-LQG, and I think, this structure will once again will put the cosmological principle into doubt. The correlation function will be invalid at this point. I will put my article that I've created here as a link. ==Johndric Valdez (talk) 05:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)==

A structure that is not a structure

In the beginning it was stated it was one of the "largest and most massive structure known in the observable universe". But at the end it says that it is not a structure.

It's crazy, though, how can a structure be not a structure? I presume that the identification of the Huge-LQG as a structure must be on Clowes' report, then later on it is no longer a structure by Nadathur. I refer it was only a pseudo-structure. Johndric Valdez (talk) 09:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)