Talk:List of largest star clusters

What type of star clusters?

The article heading and text both say this is a list of the largest known star clusters, but the table says it is a list of the largest globular clusters, AND, the second cluster in the list is an open cluster. EighteenFiftyNine (talk) 08:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Fixed it to be any type of star cluster. I probably accidentally typed “Globular cluster”. Atlantlc27Lol (talk) 00:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Pleadies

I think the Pleadies should be removed because its size isn’t cited. Sure, it is very notable, but I still think it should be removed until there is a source. Atlantlc27Lol (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I added a reference InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 12:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Alright. Atlantlc27Lol (talk) 20:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 7 June 2024

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) Polyamorph (talk) 09:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

---

List of largest known star clusters → List of largest star clusters – Per consistency with other WP astronomy lists. It is also not possible to talk about unknown objects with any degree of accuracy and would generally be simpler to call it "List of largest star clusters". SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 08:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. This argument that "we can't talk about unknown things" actually can support the current title. The logic is simple: there are several unknown star clusters that could be on the list. We can't talk about them, obviously. Therefore, these are the largest known star clusters, not the largest star clusters in the entire universe. Not all titles need to be consistent, if so, Red dwarf would be moved to M-type main-sequence star just for consistency. The article titles policy give us enough flexibility to decide which of the five charactetistics here are necessary for a title, and i believe that precision is essential in this case. Altought i still think that putting "known" in titles is necessary, such as "list of largest known stars", i will leave this debate, since the community has rejected these titles. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 17:06, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support. The "known" is clearly implied and superfluous, since one could never have a list of unknown things. ╠╣uw [talk] 12:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support per the discussion at Talk:List of largest stars#Requested move 10 May 2024. Dekimasuよ! 16:02, 7 June 2024 (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.