Talk:Black hole (disambiguation)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Canadian Politics
This example seems biased and unnecessary. Anyone agree?
- Yep. I removed it. - DNewhall
[edit] Physics
07:31, 2005 Apr 22 -- rv edit of 03:52, 2005 Apr 21 by 63.160.61.99 to previous, omitting (not a hole, but really a sphere).
The edit is in good faith, I'm sure, but incorrect. The object itself, by definition, is a dimensionless point. The event horizon of an ideal black hole is a sphere, but this is explained in detail on the appropriate pages. "Black hole" is the common term. It is, at present, unprovable whether space-time singularities may be gates to points within other universes or our own. — Xiong熊talk 07:39, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)
Black hole analogy is the current scientific term instead of micro black hole. --Quasarq 14:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- First, I'm presuming, based on edit histories that you are Special:Contributions/87.211.151.42. It seems to make a lot more sense that way.
- Okay, I'm going to be frank here. Also, I'm going to mention wikipedia policy. This is not intended to be a personal attack, but an explanation of policy, and a justification for my decision.
- Initially, I was looking at Black hole electron. It was a page that I watch. You made some changes to that page. It seemed like gibberish to me. The "superfluid" paragraph didn't make any sense, and didn't appear to make any references to black hole electrons, so I decided to investigate your edit history, wondering what other kinds of physics edits you had made, and how familiar you are with Wikipedia Policy.
- So, I saw the Black hole (disambiguation) page, and your changes to it. I'm mostly keeping up on the theoretical work in this area (doing a little research myself on black holes), and I hadn't heard the term "Black hole analogy" refering to micro black holes, so I did some checking.
- I mentioned my google checking, which found the term "Black hole analogy" only getting 494 hits. That seemed rather dubious as to whether or not the term is actually notable in that regard, but Assuming good faith, I decided to see what other edits you've done.
- The edits on Homeopathy seemed to be good faith, but in some cases, didn't follow WP:MOS very well.
- Quackery looks like trouble. Some of your changes were quickly "defended", and others were reverted.
- your changes on Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor were also quickly reverted.
- your changes on Paroxetine were also reverted.
- I didn't look at all your edits, but most seemed to be unliked by the wikipedia populace. So, I reverted your changes, and added the comment to your user page. I stand by my decision, and I'm reverting your change again. While I think that someone else may have called "micro black holes" "black hole analogies", I'm not convinced, and even if they did, the term isn't mainstream. Adding it would be considered WP:OR. McKay 23:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- I am willing to admit that someone has said that "micro black holes" are "black hole analogies". You've not given me any reason to believe this, as most of your sources, I'm unable to find. If you could provide me with a list of sources, I will read the relevant material. But, just because someone, even Steven Hawking, calls them Black hole analogies, doesn't make it so. But, on the other hand, I can't personally find justification for the term "micro black hole" either. So, if my knowledge of how wikipedia serves me correctly, all of the terms ("mini black hole" and "quantum mechanical black hole" included) should link to the existing article, and one of them (the main article) should appear on the talk page. Until we can get a reference of what they're actually called, that's how it should work, then the page should be moved to the correct name, and all of the redirects and this disambig should be updated at that point. McKay 04:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- I have now read the "relevant" article in Scientific American. Black hole analogies, are merely that -- analogies of black holes. They are not micro black holes with a new name. They do not belong in this article. For more information see User_talk:Quasarq. McKay 04:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- I am willing to admit that someone has said that "micro black holes" are "black hole analogies". You've not given me any reason to believe this, as most of your sources, I'm unable to find. If you could provide me with a list of sources, I will read the relevant material. But, just because someone, even Steven Hawking, calls them Black hole analogies, doesn't make it so. But, on the other hand, I can't personally find justification for the term "micro black hole" either. So, if my knowledge of how wikipedia serves me correctly, all of the terms ("mini black hole" and "quantum mechanical black hole" included) should link to the existing article, and one of them (the main article) should appear on the talk page. Until we can get a reference of what they're actually called, that's how it should work, then the page should be moved to the correct name, and all of the redirects and this disambig should be updated at that point. McKay 04:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I recently saw mention of nano black hole. In my opinion mini is preferable to micro which means one millionth of what? while mini is less specfic. Still better would be even ball park numbers Ccpoodle 09:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Offensive Term?
Does anyone know if "black hole" is an offensive term in some places? I've heard it mentioned in two places but no where else. One, a Star Trek based game called Star Fleet Battles even asserted that "hypermass" was the proper term and only in USA are they called black holes. The other was the IMDB review of the 1979 movie The Black Hole and further stated it was offensive in Russia. Maybe this should be mentioned on the disabiguation page? Davidac18643 (talk) 16:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
