Talk:Local Hole

Astronomy: Astronomical objects Low‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

Map needed

It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality.
Wikipedians in astronomy may be able to help!

Hypothesis

I am afraid that this supposed under-density is a hypothesis, at least when considered as a void, or even as a reason for the issues of the Hubble constant value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.201.48.30 (talk) 10:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Local void

Is this an option? Power~enwiki (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought it was preferable, but I think others would disagree. Lithopsian (talk) 12:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Local Void and the KBC Void are not the same thing (they each, also, have much different sizes; the KBC Void is abt. 2.00 Gly across and the Local Void is abt. 0.15 Gly across). I would say merging this article into the Local Void article would be like merging the Europe article into the Germany article.

— al-Shimoni (talk) 15:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Improving the article

The article was actually a rather biased account of the work. The claims about the Hubble tension in particular are serious speculation and the article did not reflect that, the account was not balanced or properly cited. I would like to move this page to a new title, 'the Local Hole (KBC supervoid)'. Many authors have written about such a void for almost 2 decades before the KBC paper, it was called the Local Hole a long time before KBC. It's fine to keep both but the article originally stated that the KBC authors discovered this void, which is not true even if you read the paper. I have corrected this but now the title makes little sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:67c:10ec:5789:8000::48d (talk) 2019-05-03T19:18:36 (UTC)

Request Clarification

This article (and its sources) are pretty unclear about whether this is a great void, or just a region with slightly less density. To this layperson, it's a contradiction to say a supercluster such as Laniakea is inside a great void. My understanding is that superclusters and galaxy filaments are the borders of great voids, not their contents. The article should clarify this claim that Laniakea is somehow inside a great void. 2601:441:4680:3230:5D4:D56A:B3A8:4EDF (talk) 17:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merged to 2 Articles

I'm expanding the pages, List of largest cosmic structures and List of voids by merging this page to them. 4lepheus B4ron (talk) 16:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will this article be depreciated then? One of the earlier comments (under section Improving the article) notes the potential for confusion with Local Hole. Will that be treated separately? LightDogYears (talk) 13:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This person 4lepheus B4ron (talk · contribs) was blocked in January 2023 for disruptive editing, and reverted in February for improper merger proposals. I don't think this is a proper merge proposal -- 65.92.244.151 (talk) 04:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 March 2023

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. To suggested title excluding 'The'. (non-admin closure) ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 17:19, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KBC Void → The Local Hole (KBC void) – As described in the comment 'Improving the article' this is more consistent with the history of the topic. LightDogYears (talk) 14:56, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't include "The " as the beginning of the title. Regards—ZaperaWiki44^{(✉/Contribs)} 22:57, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Comments after closure

@ZaperaWiki44: This is a very odd closure, as it does not follow WP:AT/WP:D rules in having the two different names for this subject as the title of this article. Either it should be "Local Hole" or "KBC Void" and not both. The disambiguator is never the alternate name for the subject. -- 65.92.244.151 (talk) 23:44, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the whole topic because I was not the one who made this request. This comment should be a reply to another editor. Regards—ZaperaWiki44^{(✉/Contribs)} 00:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, ZaperaWiki44, I mispinged the wrong person, I apologize, it was a bad copy-paste of the username. This ping should have been directed at @Raydann:, the person who performed the move and closed the request. -- 65.92.244.151 (talk) 04:09, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are right @65.92.244.151. I have endorsed the move request you initiated at WP:RM/TR. Best. ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 06:09, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]