Talk:List of black holes

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Physics: Relativity Mid‑importance

	Physics portal 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.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the relativity task force.

Astronomy: Astronomical objects Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.

An incomplete list

This article was created with good intentions to be a quick reference page listing all known and probable black hole stars; I will commit to clarifying and expanding this article, and I look forward to our joint effort to improve this article. Take care. ProfessorPaul (talk) 01:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates

Candidates should be placed on List of black hole candidates. --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 21:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using this as a source, I'm removing black hole candidates from this page and putting them in List of black hole candidates. --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 21:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not clear that this has been done; the current list appears to contain both known black holes and potential black hole candidates. How about just dividing each list into top and bottom sections, giving known black holes at the top, and candidates at the bottom? Whatever method is chosen, teh candidates really should be separated out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.174.105 (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are there actually any non-candidate black holes? As in, is there an actual technical distinction between a "candidate" and a "confirmed" black hole. As I understand it there's just degrees of evidence (and degrees of linguistic caution of writers' parts) with the most likely object contradicting models of neutron stars. After a quick google search of "Confirmed black hole" I found articles describing object also being contemporarily described as "candidates".162.218.212.1 (talk) 19:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New section?

Could we incorporate a new section "black holes by distance from Sol", or include it distance in the listing? It's trivial, but I'm curious. samwaltz (talk) 03:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, am curious to know relative & actual distances from Earth/Sun to black holes, and I think adding that information to this page would greatly increase its utility & popularity. But rather than duplicating the existing list with a reorganized one, I suggest adding sort options to the current list. This would also solve the issue of "confirmed" vs. "candidate" by offering that sort option. Steve8394 (talk) 19:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --24.34.11.217 (talk) 20:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC) there is a galaxy in the page.[reply]

If there is a galaxy mentioned on the page, simply remove it rather than nominating it for deletion. Thanks, wia (talk) 21:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Intermediate mass black holes

This section needs updating. Two others have been found, one is a duplicate, and five (listed as mass unknown below) can be considered extremely tentative because all that is known about them is that they are a bright X-ray source that is not a supermassive black hole. Best masses are listed in the following table.

In the Milky Way

2,200 – 47 Tucanae – a star cluster 16,700 light years from Earth

198 – 1E1740.7-2942 (Great Annihilator), 340 LY from Sgr A* – a confirmed black hole near the centre of the Milky Way

100,000 – CO-0.40-0.22 – this is a possible black hole near the centre of the Milky Way

1,300 – GCIRS 13E – this is a possible black hole near the centre of the Milky Way

mass unknown – Messier 15 (NGC 7078) – a globular cluster 33,600 light-years from Earth – black hole not yet confirmed

In other galaxies

500 – HLX-1 – located in the galaxy ESO 243-49

400±100 – M82 X-1

200 to 5,000 – Cigar Galaxy (Messier 82, NGC 3034) – this is a duplicate entry, it is the same as M82 X-1.

20,000 – “Michael Rich of the University of California at Los Angeles found a 20,000 solar mass black hole in a cluster in the Andromeda Galaxy, 2.2 million light years away”. “The globular cluster G1 (Mayall II) in M31 has been claimed to host a central ~20,000 M☉ black hole, but these claims have been controversial.”

mass unknown – Messier 110 (NGC 205) – companion of Andromeda galaxy, black hole not yet confirmed

mass unknown – NGC 1313 X-1 – black hole not yet confirmed

mass unknown – NGC 1313 X-2 – black hole not yet confirmed

mass unknown – Sculptor Galaxy (NGC 253) – unidentified X-ray source near but not at the galaxy centre

mass unknown <3,000 – Triangulum Galaxy (Messier 33, NGC 598) – unidentified X-ray source at the galaxy centre Mollwollfumble (talk) 22:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

im sorry for changing it I didn't see Ton 618 at the top 131.241.49.240 (talk) 22:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great job it helped me a lot with my blooket. 131.241.49.240 (talk) 23:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]