Talk:Little Red Dots

Wiki Education assignment: ASTR323_exgal

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation–supported course assignment, between 6 January 2025 and 21 March 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Enestl (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Eeriecreature, PenumbraRose, Pranathii.

— Assignment last updated by KayS24 (talk) 05:12, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Probably important

Some new info appears to have recently come out about the galaxies, if anyone feels like adding it. See: https://webbtelescope.org/contents/news-releases/2025/news-2025-101 Mrfoogles (talk) 20:36, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Noting this quote, "“We’re confounded by this new population of objects that Webb has found. We don’t see analogs of them at lower redshifts, which is why we haven’t seen them prior to Webb,” said Dale Kocevski of Colby College in Waterville, Maine, and lead author of the study.", which contradicts the claim of Green Pea galaxy local analogues. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

In the study mentioned in the article 'Discovery of Local Analogs to JWST's Little Red Dots' (Lin et al 2025), the number of GP local analogues was 7 out of an original sample of 2190. GPs are 99% star-forming galaxies without AGN, so they were never going to have a large population of analogues anyway ("which is selected from a parent sample of 2190 GPs"). So perhaps it is noteworthy that any were found at all. The original sample size should be put into the main text. Richard Nowell (talk) 11:21, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Quasi-stars

A recent paper suggests that little red dots are quasi-stars. See e.g. here. Hobbema (talk) 19:01, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Title

Why is it a "cosmological object"? There is an article on Astronomical object, but I don't understand why LRDs are "cosmological" and not simply "astronomical". Artem.G (talk) 12:07, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

LRDs are described as cosmological objects because they’re observed at very high redshifts, meaning we see them as they existed in the early universe. In astrophysical literature, such distant sources are usually termed cosmological since they relate to cosmic evolution and structure, not just individual astronomical bodies. Munyonn (talk) 05:35, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable source for this? Google Scholar returns zero results for ["little red dot" "cosmological object"] . Artem.G (talk) 08:21, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Given it's just terminology, and either could probably be used, I don't think we need a source anyway. Cosmological seems like it fits better to me on first glance, too, although I am not an astronomer. Mrfoogles (talk) 06:16, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: ASTR 323

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation–supported course assignment, between 5 January 2026 and 13 March 2026. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MichelleYH, Kyrasaurus (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Keigan O, Kim m5813.

— Assignment last updated by Kim m5813 (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

JWST limits

The lead mentions They are extremely difficult to observe, even with JWST, being "at the limits" of that telescope's observational capability. I can't find any mention of this in the cited reference. At the very least, the quotation marks around "at the limits" implies that it's a quotation of a source, but if it is then it doesn't appear to be the one linked. I originally went looking because I was trying to get clarification for what "at the limits" meant. tony 16:44, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Requested move 15 August 2026

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: no consensus. Tough one, but it does not look like there is going to be any consensus here. The raw numbers are 5 supporting and 6 opposing, and as for the strength of arguments:

The supporters argue that the singular is the default, and that one can – and people do – speak of individual LRDs using the singular LRD, and also point out that other classes of astronomical objects do not qualify for the exception.

The opposers argue that, while one can speak of it in the singular, it is overwhelmingly referred to in the plural in literature, something tied to the fact that LRDs are discussed more as an observational phenomenon – as LRDs, plural – than a proper class of astronomical objects defined by shared physical characteristics.

Both sides have made arguments that are solid interpretations on how to apply WP:NCPLURAL (which, granted, is an NC whose "class" exception is largely based on "Does it make sense?" rather than clear and rigid rules), and certainly too solid for me to move aside a 5 to 6 split and find a consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 21:02, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

---

Little Red Dots → Little Red DotLittle Red Dot – WP:NCPLURAL and per convention with other astronomical object type articles 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 01:09, 15 August 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. ASUKITE 13:19, 24 August 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 17:54, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

@Mathglot: pinging as you are the mover of the article to its current title from Little red dot (astronomical object). 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 01:10, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Comment Little red dot is taken and thus ambiguous. The only option is to return to the (astronomical object) form. The observational phenomenon is not a single dot; the anomaly would never have been noted based on a single case. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:26, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

It does not matter that 'Little red dot' is "taken"; WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does not work on a first-come, first-served basis, but on the preponderance of sources. There are pairs of pages spelled the same except for capitalization where one is an article and the other is a disambig page, and they do not require a parenthetical disambiguator: APPLE – Apple, AIDES – Aides; AI – Ai (and we aren't up to the 'B's yet). I don't know of too many examples where neither one is a redirect or D-page, but I am familiar with the SAP – Sap example.

There are already hatnotes on both articles, which may be enough because at worst, one click gets you from the wrong article to the right one, no matter where you land, but if you end up on the right page then zero clicks; whereas creating a D-page means a 100% chance of having to click to get to the right page. If there is no primary topic it can just keep its current name. Mathglot (talk) 03:24, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Move to Little red dot and Little red dot to Little red dot (Singapore). The lowercase spelling is often used in non-academic sources, and is likely predominant over the other usage now. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:16, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Comment: Support, I'm fine with the RM as stated, involving only the plural convention. I see no evidence to support a change in capitalization. I checked Scholar, and while a majority support lc among the first ten, uc is favored among the first fifty. As far as whatever non-academic sources say, I haven't checked, because we are supposed to use the best sources available. As this is an academic topic, clearly the best sources are the academic ones. Non-academic sources should either not be considered at all, or only secondarily. Mathglot (talk) 23:47, 15 August 2026 (UTC) redacted by Mathglot (talk) 00:22, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Reconsidering my !vote, based on a question in my mind about whether NCPLURAL applies equally to a collection of objects that are known to be one type of thing (e.g., Red dwarf, Pulsar) on the one hand, and a collection that may contain objects unrelated to each other other in any fundamental way other than superficial similarity on the other. Maybe NCPLURAL is being applied too broadly, or without sufficient consideration in individual cases. Odd radio circle seems like another one in this category that deserves another look; having it in the singular seems to imply a status it does not deserve. Mathglot (talk) 00:22, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Changing my !vote to Oppose, based on the preponderance of reliable sources and the fact that WP:DUEWEIGHT is a provision of WP:Neutral point of view policy, which far outweighs WP:NCPLURAL, a naming convention guideline. Mathglot (talk) 00:31, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose, Keep as Little Red Dots, an accurate and more descriptive name for the topic, as astronomers are still trying to figure out what these are. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:04, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

  That doesn't address WP:SINGULAR. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:22, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

  +1 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 17:23, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

  Sure it does. The part that says "and the names of classes of objects", which these are (nobody can say for sure what they are but there are more than one). Randy Kryn (talk) 22:47, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

  The precedent for types of astronomical objects has long been set at such examples as Red dwarf and not "red dwarfs" and Pulsar but not "pulsars" as your suggestion would imply. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 05:05, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

  How do you weigh the conventions for astronomical objects set up by Wikipedia editors on the one hand, against the majority of sources in a given example which may go contrary to the general trend on the other? That is: let's suppose the convention matches what the sources say in, say, 85% of the cases, but in the other 15%, it does not. What do you do for those in the 15% minority: do you follow the convention established by editors for the majority even for the minority cases, or do you go with what the sources say in a minority case, which may be contrary to the established convention? Which one should prevail? What if LRD is in the 15% (which I think it is, by my count at Scholar)? Mathglot (talk) 09:07, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

  IT doesn't matter, because it makes sense to refer to an individual Little Red Dot. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:39, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

  I'm appealing to what the majority of reliable sources say for support, i.e., WP:DUEWEIGHT, a portion of Pillar Two, the key policy of WP:Neutral point of view. And you're appealing to... what? Mathglot (talk) 00:26, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support, with LaundryPizza03's solution. Singular is the clear mandate of the style guidelines. Sławomir Biały (talk) 08:11, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
• Support: per WP:PLURAL.--ReyHahn (talk) 08:52, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
• Comment so this point doesn't get lost as a sub-reply above. The article states in the lead sentence "Little Red Dots (LRDs) are a class of small, red-tinted astronomical objects", whereas WP:NCPLURAL gives the exception "and the names of classes of objects". Little Red Dots are a unexplained class of astronomical objects, not an explained astronomical object such as pulsar and red dwarf. Nobody can say for sure what they are. Given the overwhelming use of 'Dots' in sources, and using IAR as backup per specific language in NCPLURAL, the inclusion of 'Dots' for 'Dot' seems both appropriate and correct. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:51, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

  that are nevertheless often considered together: This is never the case for classes of astronomical objects. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:11, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

  Except this one. The studies do not concentrate about the Little Red Dot no. 33 or 145 or whatever, but about all of them. 21 Andromedae (talk) 00:00, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep the plural. Seems to be an exception that proves the rules. kencf0618 (talk) 23:46, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
• Support as consistent with article titles for every other class of astronomical object. Praemonitus (talk) 00:42, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose per Randy Kryn comment above. If the nature of these objects were determined, we could even discuss, and the logic for planet, red dwarf would be valid. But for now, the relevant thing is that there are many, not only one, mysterious little red dots, which are being actively studied as a collective form to determine their nature (which is the reason for why this article exists, at all.). This article is not talking about a single red dot in the sky, but about the discovery of several mysterious objects and their theorized nature. Talking in singular form makes little sense, it's not like talking about a planet or a galaxy. That's why it satisfies PLURAL.21 Andromedae (talk) 00:00, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

  There are multiple articles about individual little red dots, which use the singular form: The Cliff (astronomical object), CAPERS-LRD-z9, MoM-BH*-1. SevenSpheres (talk) 02:42, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisting comment: There's a lot going on here. The RM is ostensibly about pluralization, but the topic was moved from a disambiguated title, so WP:PTOPIC is a concern, and LaundryPizza03 has a multi-move solution to consider. ASUKITE 13:19, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Astronomy and WikiProject Astronomical objects have been notified of this discussion. ASUKITE 13:19, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose Scrolling through the cited studies, it appears the overwhelming majority use the plural. The article is primarily about this observed population of objects with unexpected characteristics, not (yet?) a specific (or at all defined) class of object. DiodotusNicator (talk) 12:39, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:NCPLURAL lists "classes of objects" as the first major exception to the general rule of using singular titles (this exception is also listed at WP:SINGULAR). This is a class of objects (albeit an observational class which may represent multiple physical classes), so the current title is perfectly consistent with NCPLURAL. Sources generally use the plural form. NoFlickering (talk) 18:24, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

  Since we don't yet know for certain that these represent multiple classes of objects, I don't think your argument can be upheld. At present, the term 'little red dots' just appears to be used to represent their multiplicity. Likewise, for example, 'star' (main sequence, giant, white dwarf, neutron star) and 'galaxy' (elliptical, lenticular, or spiral) represent multiple classes of objects, yet the singular form is used for their primary article. Praemonitus (talk) 00:26, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

  Right, that exception is mostly about groups of distinct things (e.g., administrative subdivisions, areas of mathematics, etc). Otherwise it would render the preference for singular non-functional. LRDs are more like freckles: yes they are usually referred to as a group, but it does make sense to refer to them individually, and many sources do. Sławomir Biały (talk) 06:59, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, as you say, "...and many sources do" refer to them individually. Here are the last continuation pages for two Scholar searches:

  • page 5 of 81 results for "Little Red Dot"
  • Page 17 of 351 results for "Little Red Dots"

  So, yes, "many do", but most do not by a factor of about 4–1. Mathglot (talk) 20:10, 30 August 2026 (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.

"Discovered by <instrument>", or "discovered by <person(s)> using <instrument>"?

Your feedback would be appreciated at this discussion. The lead sentence of Little Red Dots is given as the main example there, but the discussion transcends this one topic, and involves all the sciences. Mathglot (talk) 00:19, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Incorrect claim of black hole star

As I already explained in Talk:Quasi-star, Naidu's comments in the Guardian interview should not be attributed to any source other than Guardian. Specifically, this claim is not correct:

• A team of astronomers led by Rohan P. Naidu has suggested light from MoM-BH*-1 could be explained in terms of a proposed astrophysical object, a black hole star.

The team could have said "black hole star" or referenced previous sources which discussed "black hole star" or "quasi-star" etc, this in the Nature article

• * Naidu, R.P., Matthee, J., Katz, H. et al. A gas-enshrouded and gas-reddened black hole at cosmic dawn. Nature 656, 329–333 (2026).

They did not do so.

@Kepler-1229b, please provide a quote that substantiates your edit. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:36, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

@Johnjbarton They stated an "enshrouded black hole...a result of extremely dense, turbulent gas forming a dust-free envelope around a supermassive black hole", which corresponds to a quasi-star. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 20:02, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

@Kepler-1229b For an editor to say "corresponds to a quasi-star" is original research. They clearly know what a "black hole star" is, Naidu made the claim in the Guardian interview. They could have made that claim in did the Nature article. They did not. We should not assert that they did. We should remove the Nature source and remove the claim about multiple people since Naidu was interviewed. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:49, 21 August 2026 (UTC)