Talk:Supermassive black hole/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

reversion of edit

in the sentence "Accretion of interstellar gas onto supermassive black holes power active galactic nuclei and quasars" the word "Accretion" is the subject of the verb "power". Normal English would say "Accretion (of interstellar gas etc) powers active galactic nuclei (etc)". --2607:FEA8:D5DF:1AF0:89E4:B3DB:7CD7:65FD (talk) 18:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Praemonitus, I agree with the above, it should be "powers". Schazjmd (talk) 18:58, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

There used to be better wording for that sentence that got revised recently for some reason. I reverted it back to something closer to what it used to say. Aldebarium (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Aldebarium, that looks good, thanks! Schazjmd (talk) 19:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I used the singular 'power' because "active galactic nuclei and quasars" is plural. I'd use the plural 'powers' if it said 'powers an active galactic nucleus or a quasar". Praemonitus (talk) 19:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

But the verb should agree with the singular subject, not the plural predicate. "Accretion powers quasars." Anyway, no matter, Aldebarium changed the wording. Schazjmd (talk) 19:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Supermassive Black Hole (SBH) & Supermassive White Hole (SWH)

The abbreviation for supermassive black hole that I've seen the most is SBH: three letters for three words. Supermassive white hole (SWH). Standard stuff. See Seal #1a: Creating Universes with BIG Bangs-Bit Bangs/Supermassive White Holes - The Eternal Conglomerate (of Universes) Theory at http://7seals.blogspot.com . 2601:589:4801:5660:3C17:5034:8449:91C6 (talk) 04:44, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Are you sure? SBH often gets used for stellar black holes, so it can be ambiguous. Google scholar search shows that SMBH is used more frequently. Praemonitus (talk) 14:51, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I did a NASA ADS search for refereed papers with "SMBH" in the title or abstract. This returned 3787 results. I then did the same search for "SBH", and found only 103 results for this. A subset of them were used to mean "supermassive" but in many cases "SBH" was used to mean "stellar black hole" or "stellar-mass black hole". Given this enormous difference in usage in scientific literature, it seems fair to deprecate the use of "SBH" in the text of this WP article and to retain the "sometimes" in the first sentence. Aldebarium (talk) 16:55, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

In addition to agreeing with Praemonitus and Aldebarium (SMBH is the common abbreviation in the literature), your link is to a pseudoscience blog, so absolutely not what we should use a reference on wikipedia. - Parejkoj (talk) 17:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

searching for a nasa program

Hi !

I'm looking for the supermassive black hole created by i.e A2261 BCG. I've seen a few month a wp:en article who was about this supermassive black hole who was conduct by the NASA. Can't find this article ! I want to create this article on wp:fr. See the stars (two comets before Christmas have created a light in these region) That's all that i know. And viva wp:en and America !! Thank's Mike Coppolano (talk) 07:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Please delete this comment as per WP:NOTAFORUM. CheeseInTea (talk) 19:57, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Proposed merger

Stupendously large black hole -> Supermassive black hole

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy#Stupendously large black_hole for some background to this proposal. Lithopsian (talk) 20:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea, and have been meaning to get around to doing it. Now that there's a formal "merge discussion" tag, I'll hold off a bit longer. PianoDan (talk) 02:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Support: this one is a WP:TOOSOON neologism. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:04, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

A single publication and a handful of press releases do not a new term (and thus new article) make. Any merge to here should drastically shorten it. - Parejkoj (talk) 16:50, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I'd support the merge based on WP:TOOSOON, but with the suggestion that at most a single sentence should be devoted to this term (SLAB) in the SMBH article. The SLAB terminology is new and not widely accepted and doesn't really have a strong scientific reason to even be used at all. Something along the lines of 'Some astronomers have proposed the terms "Ultramassive Black Hole" and "Stupendously Large Black Hole" for the largest supermassive black holes.' And add a couple of citations to back up this statement, but just leave it at that. And that statement should definitely not be in the lead section of the article. We don't need to call further attention to these terms, which really don't add anything significant to the science. The interesting science discussion about what are the most massive black holes in the universe, and what physical processes are responsible for the upper mass limit, is independent of these arbitrary labels. Aldebarium (talk) 17:26, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Why not selectively merge with ultramassive black hole? Mithoron (talk) 00:05, 23 October 2022 (UTC)