Talk:List of quasars

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Purpose of this page?[edit]

See also: WT:ASTRO

I don't see the purpose of this page. There are now some hundreds of thousands of quasars known (e.g. the SDSS has spectra of ~100,000, 2dF has ~25,000). Most of the entries on this list have very little information provided about them besides a link to NED and/or SIMBAD. Unless we have guidelines for inclusion, I think this whole page should be deleted. I'll wait a while to hear counter arguments, and then I'll make a request for deletion. - Parejkoj (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have strong feelings, but a list of notable quasrs might be helpful. They could just be listed as links individually in the quasar article "See also" section, but that might be a bit lengthy. I do think, that to be of any use at all, there should be some comment here re notability; to this end I just commented the obvious two. Wwheaton (talk) 17:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we have a good definition of notability, then I'll be happy. Historically important is a good rationale, and ones with a separate name (e.g. Einstein's Cross) are ok. Beyond that, what else? - Parejkoj (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about:
  • List of gravitationally-lensed multiple-image quasars
Early discoveries
  1. 10 earliest discovered quasars
  2. 10 earliest discovered radio-quiet quasars
  3. 10 earliest discovered OVV quasars
  4. 10 earliest discovered host galaxies containing quasars
  5. 10 earliest discovered gravitationally lensed multipe-image quasars
extreme quasars
  1. 10 highest red-shift quasars
  2. 10 lowest red-shift quasars
  3. 10 most powerful quasars
  4. 10 least powerful quasars
Historically relevant quasars
  1. list of quasars that were considered most distant by order of succession in discovery
  2. list of quasars that were considered most powerful by order of succession in discovery
  3. list of quasars that were considered least powerful by order of succession in discovery
  4. list of quasars that were considered least distant by order of succession in discovery
?
70.55.87.175 (talk) 11:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a very difficult list to maintain. Having 10 items per is going to be difficult to keep track of, since in some cases there were just a handful and then suddenly dozens when a new survey came online. And for the "extreme" ones, someone will have to update it every year or so when new ones are discovered. Maybe just a short list of the first discovered ones, the named ones and a few current record holders. - Parejkoj (talk) 14:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, people would need to update it, but that's true of ever so many articles on Wikipedia concering sports. And the Exoplanets list of extremes is also periodically updated. It's just a chore that needs to be kept track of. First 10 is an extremely common listing limit, so I chose that to keep it uniform. And once established, they won't change. The considered most/least lists just need to add a new entry everytime a recordholder changes. 70.51.10.113 (talk) 03:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edits include a "List of superluminal quasars" - do you mean "List of quasars with apparent superluminal jet motion" or "List of quasars with apparent superluminal redshifts"? The first might be worthwhile, the second not. And the "First star later found..." and "First radio source later found..." are just going to duplicate 3C 48 and 3C 273, I think, unless you mean something different by those. Otherwise, I think this reorganization isn't too bad. Once it is cleaned up a bit, let's delete the long list at the top, and probably some of those pages as well, if this is the only thing that links to them. - Parejkoj (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I meant superluminal jets. I'll change the title. As for duplication, that's fine, since the first is a separate first, even if the same quasar acheived it. As for First Star and First Radio source, no they are not duplicates. As the 3C catalog is of radio sources and not stars, then the first discovered star later found to be a quasar would be something else. Some 19th century "stars" were found to be quasars, and those predate radio, so can't be 3C objects. As for first radio source, IIRC some early radio sources were later linked to optical sources, and hence the identification of quasar postdates 3C 48 and 3C 273, as the optical counterpart wasn't discovered until later. 70.55.84.173 (talk) 07:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I get it. I didn't understand what you meant by the wording. Those two will be very hard to track down, but I wish you (or whomever wants to do so) luck! - Parejkoj (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first section can be converted to a list of otherwise very notable quasars. It would be come a controlled list, like other lists that from the title would be overly general, but in reality is restricted to the very notable ones. Since the page has other lists, then only ones that are notable for other reasons that listed further in the page would be in the first list. This would not preclude duplication of entries further down the page, since other notability may include those quasars listed for other reasons. For instance, the Twin Quasar has a suspected planet associated with a microlensing event in one of its lobes. 70.55.84.168 (talk) 12:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But there are also a whole slew of pages that are just stubs for apparently random sources. It looks like they just had data copied from NED, and are not notable at all. I'll wait for you to finish reorganizing, and then I'll go delete them. - Parejkoj (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it hasn't been rebuilt yet. Alot of them were added by User:CarloscomB. You can reorganize the first list on the page anytime you want. I didn't use the {{underconstruction}} or {{inuse}} so that anyone can start help fixing the list up. 70.55.84.105 (talk) 05:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The CarloscomB list additions and the articles themselves have problems. Many of them are not by many strict definitions of quasars, actually quasars, they are other types of active galaxies... 70.51.9.251 (talk) 08:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Original list[edit]

This page lists quasars.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.9.251 (talk) 06:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old list was completely integrated into new tabular list 70.51.10.188 (talk) 11:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Schmidt & Oke 1963.

history of quasars[edit]

for list of 10 earliest known quasars...
  • [1] Jan 1965 - 34 quasars known
  • [2] Mar 1966 - 30 quasar redshifts known
  • (book) Quasi-Stellar Objects , Burbidge & Burbidge , 1967 [3]
  • [4] 1964 - 4 quasars with known redshifts
  • [5]
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.55.85.253 (talk) 08:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1967, there were only 7 quasars with z>1.9 [6]
  • B234 z = 0.06 ? [7]
  • Q0241+62 z = 0.038 ? [8]

70.51.9.220 (talk) 07:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

06:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Most distant quasars[edit]

I think the 1999 z=5.02 quasar is a mistake by the source I used (acheivements by Dr. Schneider, PSU), so this section is now complete, until the next record breaker is found, or more quasars at z>6. If people have no objections, I'll remove the 1999 z=5.02 titlist and shrink the recordholder table by one entry, spanning the era 1998-2000 with the SDSS 0338 quasar to the SDSS 1204 quasar. The titleholders are otherwise complete and referenced, including which succeeded which. The only hole is the 1999 timeperiod, where I can't find any data on that particular quasar. So, now we have a history of science section with the history of the most distant quasar. 70.55.87.237 (talk) 11:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a list of most distant quasars is created, a history list of most distant radio-loud quasars, history list of most distant radio-quiet quasars, a list of most distant radio-loud quasars, list of most distant radio-quiet quasars, list of most distant OVV, history list of most distant OVV should be built for that page. 70.55.87.237 (talk) 11:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

excised table entry
1999 - z=5.02 This was not the most distant object discovered at time of discovery. It did not surpass galaxy SSA22-HCM1 (z=5.74) (discovered 1999). [1] [2]

So does anyone know about this quasar? 70.51.9.241 (talk) 06:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nearest quasars[edit]

I think I'm going to delete this section, since there's a great deal of contradictory information from reputable sources concering what are the nearest quasars. I'll keep the most commonly considered nearest quasar in the table of extremes though. 70.55.84.76 (talk) 09:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

10 Least Distant
Rank Quasar Distance Notes
1 3C 273 z=0.158

  • z represents redshift, a measure of recessional velocity and inferred distance due to cosmological expansion

[3]

Least Distant Quasar Titleholders
Quasar Date Distance Notes
3C 273 1963 − current z=0.158 First redshift identified for a quasar. This was the most distant object discovered at the time of discovery. No other quasars are less distant than the first quasar whose redshift was measured.

  • z represents redshift, a measure of recessional velocity and inferred distance due to cosmological expansion

Ok, this is what was just removed. 70.51.9.241 (talk) 06:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Summer2000 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference 10Feb2005 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ QUASARS - HOW BIG ARE THEY?

Excised table[edit]

First 10 Quasars Discovered
Rank Quasar Date Notes
1 3C 48 1960 [1]

These were characterized as quasars, but may or may not have had their redshifts determined at the time of their quasar determination.

The above table was excised. It might be added back later, but I couldn't find sufficient material for it. 70.51.9.241 (talk) 06:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

superlumic[edit]

superluminality to integrate: [10]

70.55.84.60 (talk) 06:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quasars mistaken for stars, etc[edit]

I'm thinking of adding a table for a list of quasars mistaken for stars and other things, and a list of non-quasars mistaken for quasars.

Seven examples are listed at [11]

76.66.197.2 (talk) 10:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excised list members[edit]

I excised these two from the top list, as the person who added it made no mention of why they should be listed. As this is not a complete list of all quasars (WP:INDISCRIMINATE), nor it is a duplication of Category:Quasars (WP:Duplicate), there should be a reason for listing them. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 08:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3C 173.1 A radio galaxy/quasar located in the constellation Camelopardalis.
3C 286 A Seyfert 1 Galaxy/quasar at redshift 0.8493 with a radial velocity of 164,137 km/s.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of quasars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on List of quasars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SMSS J114447.77-430859.3 most luminous?[edit]

https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.04204 says

"Discovery of the most luminous quasar of the last 9 Gyr"
"L_bol = (4.7 +/- 1.0) * 10^47 erg/s or M_i(z=2) = -29.74 mag"

I replaced 3C 273 with this one, but then discovered brightness probably is different from luminosity. Then I saw SMSS J215728.21-360215.1 listed as most luminous at -32.36 mag. I'm confused how SMSS J114447.77-430859.3 is the most luminous and reverted my edit. Darsie42 (talk) 19:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the whole article needs clarity on intrinsic brightness vs apparent brightness. And of course we measure brightness and luminosity in different wavelengths via different methods. This article is a mess.... ★NealMcB★ (talk) 19:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I saw in the Current Events page that QSO J0529-4351 was just found to be the most luminous object ever observed. Here is the text of the entry:
GigaDerp (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Shields1999 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_quasars&oldid=1209153348"