Legoktm (talk) 01:39, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Could equally refer to objects outside the Solar System, including List of most massive stars, List of most massive black holes, and List of most massive exoplanets, and just "Most massive" could refer to any article describing the largest of a type of thing, e.g. Largest organisms. Too ambiguous to be good redirects and should be deleted. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:40, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
::But "object" need not refer to celestial objects. The most massive of most types objects are much less than 10^42 kg. Simply targeting the Orders of magnitude (mass) article (rather than a specific section) seems like it would be unhelpfully imposing a target on an inherently ambiguous redirect.
::Moreover, even celestial objects are less massive than 10^42 kg, e.g. according to the article, the most massive star is 10^32 kg. So targeting a specific section doesn't make sense, because the class of object is not defined in these search terms. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:15, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
:::The search term is not limited to celestial objects, but simply "objects" my suggested target lists the most massive objects known - i.e. exactly what is being searched for. Those who are looking for that will be helped, those looking for something else will be no better or worse off than at present so some people win and nobody loses. In contrast with deletion nobody wins, and in some cases (depending on multiple factors) may actually be hindered, there is no question which is the better outcome for the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 22:43, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
::::Well, then the question would be what an object is- few people would consider groups of stars, galaxies, etc. a single object, so targeting the 10^42 section still doesn't make any sense to me. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
::::: Readers who read that section and decide that none of the entries there meet their definition of "object" are capable of scrolling up until they reach something they consider an object. (and, to be clear, I support retargeting the redirects with "object" there). * Pppery * it has begun... 03:15, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
::::::I still think we are going out of our way to bend over backwards to try to make these acceptable redirects. These partial title match redirects were recently created, and the creator supports deletion. Mdewman6 (talk) 15:32, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
:::::::So? Creators do not own pages, and these are plausible search terms with a clear target that matches exactly what is being searched. Doing our best to help people find the content they are looking for is our job, yet you propose we go out of our way to make finding content harder. Thryduulf (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
::::::::The point is that these do not have a "clear target that matches exactly what is being searched" for the reasons I have stated above. I guess we can just agree to disagree on this one (I believe you and I are more often than not in agreement, however), but I believe that few if any users who regularly work with redirects would have created these redirects, but now that they exist, we are trying to shoehorn them in somewhere rather than return to the recent status quo of their non-existence. Mdewman6 (talk) 16:59, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::If you think that someone searching for "most massive known objects" being taken to the heaviest section of a list of objects ordered by mass will not find what they are looking for then there really is nothing we can do but agree to disagree because I can't think of anything (whether it exists on Wikipedia or not) that could be a closer match. Thryduulf (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
::Users would need to navigate to a subcategory to reach the list articles I mention above, and neither the category nor any subcategory includes the current target. Undoubtedly there are other pages plausibly sought by users not in that category. Again, seems like we should just defer to the search function here- redirecting to a category from a partial search term seems like we are searching too broadly to try to turn a bad redirect into a good one. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:12, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
:::The point is that search results are less helpful for finding articles about the most massive things than the category of articles listing the most massive things, especially as search results can be several clicks away (depending on the combination of method used to navigate, device, user access levels, etc). Neither the current targets nor any of the other suggested targets are more or less related to this search term than any other so those arbitrarily highlighted articles not being directly in that category is not at all relevant. If someone doesn't want to navigate the category looking for what they want they can try searching again using a more specific search term - i.e. exactly as they could do if we deleted it so its again a choice between an outcome with some winners and no losers versus one with no winners and some significant losers. Thryduulf (talk) 22:50, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
::::Surely we should be bringing users to a page that at least includes lists that actually use "most massive" in their titles; the links available to users reaching the target is certainly relevant to choosing a redirect target or whether we should have a redirect at all. I just don't see how bringing users to a poorly populated category is more helpful than search results to a majority of users. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
:::::We must credit readers with some intelligence - if they are searching for "most massive" then arriving at a page of links to things which includes in its contents various things that are the "most massive" will not be a WP:SURPRISE even if the page title doesn't match their query. If it were otherwise then nearly all redirects from alternative titles would need deleting. On the other hand, as explained, if they aren't looking for that then they are either exactly as able to or more easily able to (depending on their devicem how they arrived at the target, and their access level) find what they are looking for or search again. This is especially the case as search results for "most massive" are less helpful than the category. Thryduulf (talk) 02:37, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
:
{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Relisting comment: There seems to be no consensus thus far
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TartarTorte 23:19, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete, with thanks to Mdewman6 for the detailed explanation why the suggested retargets are poor at best and harmful at worst. -- Tavix (talk) 02:15, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- :Given nobody else has managed it, perhaps you can explain how taking someone looking for a list of the most massive objects to a list of the most massive objects is harmful? Thryduulf (talk) 02:31, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
:::Because it is not a list of the most massive objects, it is a list of examples of things with various masses. First we would need to assume users mean astronomical objects, but there is not complete agreement as to how far the definition of astronomical object extends. Perhaps a user would agree that Hercules–Corona Borealis Great Wall in an "object", which at 10^49 kg appears in the section suggested for retargeting. But these redirects are plural, so users brought to a list would expect to see more than just the most massive example of whatever they would agree is the most massive type of object. The problem is that this higher-order organization of the structure of the Universe is more often thought about in terms of size (light-years) rather than mass. We have List of largest cosmic structures but not List of most massive cosmic structures. If we are hell-bent on having these as redirects, retargeting to galaxy filament would IMHO be superior, as at least there is some support that these are the most massive objects in the Universe, but again there is debate about that. If there was page history here we were trying to preserve, I would better understand the desire to find a suitable target for these, but given that these were recently created, the ambiguity surrounding these search terms and the lack of an obviously correct target implies to me the best course of action here is deletion. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:33, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
::::There is nothing in the search terms that restricts the searches to astronomical objects, it's just that astronomical objects happen to be the most massive objects (by pretty much any definition of object). The suggested targets take people search for the most massive (objects) to a list of things that are the most massive (objects) - I don't understand what on earth could be more relevant. If astronomical objects is not what you have in mind then you can scroll the list to find the most massive of whatever you are thinking of or you can scroll again - the results I see when searching are much less useful. See below for why Galaxy filament is definitely a bad target. Thryduulf (talk) 20:15, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- The listed terms are very natural and plausible search words, so I would oppose deletion if there is agreement on better targets. Retarget the objects to Orders of magnitude (mass). While refining to the last section is a logical thing to do per Thryduulf, I don't think readers are looking for "The Most Massive Object", but a page that has comparative content on massive objects, and an ascending or descending order is a bonus. Going to the last section and scrolling upwards is not intuitive. Retarget most massive to the superlatives Category per Thryduulf. "Massive" without reference to an object is a figure of speech. It could be big, large, huge in appearence, spread in area, gigantic in experience, etc. Readers who may or may not be familiar with categories, have a starting point there. Jay 💬 17:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
::Bringing users searching for "most massive objects" to the top of the orders of magnitude article where the first table they encounter lists subatomic particles and the like would be far too WP:R#ASTONISHing. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
:::The astonishment will wear off once they realize what the page is about! Jay 💬 02:23, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
::I suggested the wrong category for most massive. I had seen :Category:Superlatives, and wanted to suggest that, and thought it was the same Thryduulf had suggested, but apparently not. Jay 💬 11:51, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Retarget the “objects” to Orders of magnitude (mass)#The most massive things: 1042 kg and greater. I edited this article a bit (added sentence to lead, modified two headers, moved image down, added image of sand, added image of Jupiter). There is also a :Category:Heaviest or most massive things, that would be a good target for “most massive”. We should also put that category at the bottom of the redirect “Most massive objects”. Generally speaking, mass and weight are not exactly the same thing, as explained at mass versus weight, but they are very closely related, and one thing will always be heavier than another if the first thing has more mass, and the two things are subject to the same gravitational field strength. Because mass and weight are so closely related, I created that :Category:Heaviest or most massive things, and plan to delete :Category:Heaviest things. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
:
{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:39, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Weak retarget to Orders of magnitude (mass), which is a good target for these search terms. Admittedly, it's not a list of the most massive objects, but it is at least close enough to get a reader on the right track if this is what they're searching for. Second choice: delete. I think :Category:Lists of superlatives is too tangential and too full of irrelevant things to be an appropriate target. Strongly oppose keeping the current target, as it is very misleading – a reader who searches "Most massive known objects" and is taken to List of Solar System objects by size#Most massive known objects may easily be led to believe, incorrectly, that the Sun is the most massive known object. It isn't, regardless of how you define "object". —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 08:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: Any comment regarding my suggested compromise of retargeting to galaxy filament? Mdewman6 (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- :Galaxy filament would be both a very surprising and misleading target for someone using any of these search terms, so I don't support retargetting there. They are described as the "largest known structures" and as "massive" but according to Orders of magnitude (mass)#The most massive things: 1042 kg and greater they are not the most massive known objects - if you define these as objects then the more massive Hercules–Corona Borealis Great Wall at least is too. If you're just looking for "most massive" then the great wall and the observable universe are both more massive. If it's not galactic objects you have in mind then you are going to be surprised and possibly confused at ending up there. Thryduulf (talk) 20:10, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
:::Hercules–Corona Borealis Great Wall is a galaxy filament, hence my suggestion, and other galaxy filaments are more massive than anything else in that section of the orders of magnitude list. And the universe is not an object. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
::::The only thing in the article about the Great Wall that says it is a filament is its presence in :Category:Galaxy filaments, if you don't know it is one (as I didn't) and the article doesn't state they are the most massive objects so if you don't know both those key pieces of information beforehand then you will be surprised and confused - and if you do know them you are extremely unlikely to be using these search terms. Thryduulf (talk) 20:18, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
::I think the search terms are too vague and the definition of "object" too debatable for it to be appropriate to redirect to an article about one specific class of things. The target should be some sort of list or topic related to relative masses of different objects. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 00:25, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
: More formally !voting, although I already suggested something similar above: Retarget most massive to :Category:Heaviest or most massive things; Retarget the other two to Orders of magnitude (mass)#The most massive things: 1042 kg and greater. I concur that galaxy filament is not a good target since it inappropriately prejudges the answer to the question* Pppery * it has begun... 01:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
::I'm equally happy with :Category:Superlatives and :Category:Heaviest or most massive things as a target for Most massive. Thryduulf (talk) 09:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
:I didn't intend to become so outspoken about this, but in any case, if these are to be redirects, we must assume these partial search terms mean the most massive objects in the Universe because they lack any qualification to the contrary. Perhaps the lead of the galaxy filament article could be edited to explicitly state these are the most massive objects in the Universe. If we're not going the redirect a user seeking to learn about the "most massive objects" to the article about the most massive objects in the Universe, with reasoning that {{tq|the search terms are too vague and the definition of "object" too debatable}} and {{tq|it inappropriately prejudges the answer to the question}} then deletion is the only appropriate action in my view. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
:
{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Relisting comment: Attempting to kick the can one more/last time to see if any more comments come from this ... and to close the day which this nomination was listed (almost a month ago).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 02:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- Weak delete the 1st as too generic/ambiguous, "Most massive" could mean anything even if the largest known thing to us it may not be what readers want. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
