This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
To be honest, I created this article to have updates about black holes, like the list of largest known stars page. Such news are spreading to the Internet. Some of them are:
Some saying M87 has largest black hole
Some saying NGC 1277, others OJ 287
What is it really? So I created this page. For news in the Internet with false issues to be stopped.
The final thing before I created this is that some news say NGC 4889 as largest but NGC 1277 is 2nd. I come up here to show that NGC 1277 is really 5th and the 2nd place really belongs to the Phoenix Cluster, through which the data is long abandoned.
So that's it. Created for people to be informed. ==Johndric Valdez (talk) 10:05, 16 November 2013 (UTC)==
Just heere to say that I appreciate it. RhinoMind (talk) 12:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
It really creates me confusion. Yes, more massive black holes are larger, however, why are they large? Because of their mass.
However it confuses me. Largest or most massive? ==Johndric Valdez (talk) 10:05, 16 November 2013 (UTC)==
The size of a black hole singularity is always the same, infinitesimal, the size of the event horizon depends solely on the mass of the black hole. So "most massive" works better, as someone might think it was about the volume of the singularity, which does not change with anything. However, you could consider adding the size of the event horizon to the table. -- 126.96.36.199 (talk) 01:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
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. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: No consensus. There seem to be enough questions marks at the moment, and a body of opposition, so I suggest some further discussion on the way forward. (non-admin closure) — Amakuru (talk) 10:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Oppose there should be no unrestricted list of black holes by mass. The list should be restricted to the most massive known. This should not be some random selection of black holes. -- 188.8.131.52 (talk) 20:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
My plan is that the black holes list table are colored, such as the way as List of most luminous stars, red or pinkish for supermassive, yellow or gold for intermediate and light blue for stellar mass. Reason is some black holes have estimates that cross the boundary between intermediate and supermassive, stellar and intermediate, which case they could be green or orange.
There's no problem for sources; there are hundreds (even thousands, maybe) of citations of astronomers in arXiv about black hole masses, so it is unlikely to occur a problem similar to the List of largest known galaxies. What makes me have a second opinion is that such a list would be incredibly huge. SkyFlubbler(talk) 04:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Support There's no need to have the quantifiers "...in the Universe" or "...that have been discovered to date" as that goes without saying. The lead covers the inclusion criteria (IE known black holes in the universe). LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 07:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
The list currently has 114 entries, but I still have five papers here with black hole estimates of 71 BL Lac objects, 35 Seyfert galaxies, 42 quasars, 28 BCGs and 7 other galaxies from an independent study, totalling almost 300 entries. This doesn't include another few thousand intermediate and stellar mass entries. SkyFlubbler(talk) 14:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I will. These entries are just on the list, with mass quoted and reference for that mass. What I really like about this list is that black holes have a far more citations than the largest stars, and even some candidates in the largest stars list cite references that is not exact.
I assure that only those black holes in the references will be reported. I will study entries on List of black holes. Lots of them are bluelinked at the very least. SkyFlubbler(talk) 17:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
There've been plenty of successful AfDs on astronomical objects which have been in a paper. Being in a paper does not equal notability per se. Just an fyi. ~Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 17:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, this is a list, and lots of news feeds and press releases report black holes. This would be a pretty fair claim, in fact, the Jan. 25 press release of ESO links this list. SkyFlubbler(talk) 17:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Comment It may be premature to pose this as a requested move. It seems to be a question about changing the purpose of the article. The lead paragraphs have been changed to state: This list contains all black holes with precisely known masses. Is this what the editors want here? Should this be a list of every black hole with a measured mass in the literature, including those that don't meet the criteria for a notable astronomical object?
Massive stars are rare. Massive black holes aren't. Now that many black hole masses are being determined, is this the best type of list to have? Maybe it should become a list of masses of those objects, but only those notable enough to have an article.
To be notable an astronomical object has to have been analyzed in several sources, not just listed, and not just picked up in multiple newspapers at the time it was discovered. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I intend to list here all the entries that can be found, 1 million solar masses or greater, notable or not. Maybe that's the reason I would like to move it, since the current title gives the essence of "only the biggest black holes, ordered by mass" with the latter being "all known black holes, ordered by mass". The latter also portrays "black holes and probable candidates". Changing the heading would give the topic. SkyFlubbler(talk) 19:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
That should bave been a new article instead of repurposing this article. A list of most massive black holes would be succint and clearly defined (a top 100, or something with a low mass cut-off). A complete list of black holes with known masses should have been done as a separate listing. That listing should be sortable by right ascension, location, constellation, etc. -- 184.108.40.206 (talk) 06:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Oppose; the new title would have to include every black hole in existence, which simply won't do due to the vast number known or theorized. Instead, what we can do is have a section in this article for the largest intermediate-mass black holes and another section for stellar black holes. StringTheory11 (t • c) 16:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
So you mean, a comparison? And by you said "theorized", I think we must change the lead sentence to black holes and also probable candidates. SkyFlubbler(talk) 09:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
I just added Holmberg 15A as the most massive black hole known, but discovered therafter it was already in the list in a lower position. The page on Holmberg 15A cites the same paper, yet, two different masses are given on that page (170 billion solar massses) and in this list (10 billion solar masses).
This would probably help people understand the size of the event horizon and compare it to the Sun. Should I go through with this or is it unnecessary? --Are you freaking kidding me (talk) 01:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
That would be taking up the space. This is not like the list of largest known stars article, as you can see, the numbers are in billions. SkyFlubbler(talk)—Preceding undated comment added 09:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I like the idea of adding the event horizon radii of the black holes to the table. I think you should go through with this. Multiverse Guy (talk) 22:03, 21 December 2015 (UTC)