| Revision as of 05:59, 16 September 2024 editRemsense (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Template editors61,418 edits Reverting edit(s) by Vina Sarmiento Yambao (talk) to rev. 1242394027 by Lowercase sigmabot III: Vandalism (UV 0.1.5)Tags: Ultraviolet Undo← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 16:01, 29 October 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,303,067 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Universe/Archive 4) (bot |
| (3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) |
| Line 65: |
Line 65: |
|
{{Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Universe/1}} |
|
{{Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Universe/1}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== "]" listed at ] == |
|
== Space and time == |
|
|
|
] |
|
|
|
|
|
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 21#God (artwork)}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 18:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
While spacetime is a technical term, the universe is spacetime and its contents. The interaction of space and time is part of science (see ]). Therefore, link spacetime and write space and time. Space and time should remain to aid nontechnical readers. Besides, space and time are everyday words which shouldn’t be linked per ]. ] (]) 23:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
== "]" listed at ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
] |
|
:I think linking the tactile concepts is much more helpful and intuitive for a general audience. Your conception of ] is also a hair too broad and dogmatic: links are a navigation aid, so every article has other articles whence it can be linked: normally space and time shouldn't be linked, but they should be from here, as their encyclopaedic substance is directly relevant. ]] 23:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 28#Universe (artwork)}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 23:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
::In the context of the universe, space and time means spacetime. While a technical term, it is the correct term. It is technically incorrect to consider space and time as separate, which is what separate links imply. Additionally, ] redirects to spacetime. ] (]) 23:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I don't think this argument here is very robust or coherent, sorry. We're not operating in a particular technical frame, we're operating in a general, encyclopaedic frame. People following a link in this place are much more likely to be interested in learning about space and time as tactile, general concepts. ]] 23:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::While Misplaced Pages should be accessible to the general, nontechnical reader, it should be technically accurate. ] (]) 00:00, 28 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Just because it bothers you doesn't make it inaccurate. The scope of the article is broader than a physics context. ]] 00:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Let's get a ]. ] (]) 00:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::If someone else agrees with you, I'm sure they'll let me know. ]] 00:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
=== TLDR for 3O === |
|
|
While we both agree the first sentence should be: "The <b>universe</b> is space and time and their contents.", we disagree on how linking should occur for "space and time". |
|
|
<ul> |
|
|
<li>My opinion: ]. Spacetime is a concept within the ], an accepted scientific theory, that space and time are intertwined. Linking them together conforms to the theory of relativity while linking them separately does not because such linking implies space and time aren't intertwined. </li> |
|
|
<li>{{u|Remsense}}'s opinion: ] and ]. An implied technical inaccuracy is alright because the general reader would prefer to learn about space and time as separate concepts, even though these topics aren't technically separate. </li> |
|
|
</ul> |
|
|
@{{u|Remsense}}, feel free to provide your TLDR of this dispute if you want. ] (]) 00:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{| style="border-top: solid thin lightgrey; background: transparent; padding: 4px;" |
|
|
| ] '''Response to ]:''' |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| style="padding-left: 1.6em;" | The current version seems much preferable to me. We know that ] is to introduce the topic to nonspecialist readers in plain English. We also know that ] for the general reader to understand—it should be intelligible ''on sight''. We have individual articles on ] and ] because they are not identical concepts. We also have the capability to explain that science considers space and time to be linked. The current version does everything asked of it, while the proposed changes introduces a much more abstract concept in the first sentence without adequately explaining it. <!-- Template:Third opinion response --> ] (]) 10:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Capitalization of the word "Universe" == |
|
|
|
|
|
Shouldn't it be the Universe? I mean we only have one universe, doesn't it make the "universe" a ]? According to English grammar rules, all proper nouns should be capitalized, isn't it? ] (]) 10:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Not quite on, both counts. There are many proper names normally used with the definite article in English running text, but those articles are not actually part of the name, e.g. ], ]. And no, not all proper names are capitalized in English, that's an oversimplification that works most of the time: other exceptions include ''summer'', ]] 10:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::MOS has had several discussions about this, one in 2014 ], a long one with an RfC in 2015 ] one in 2016 ]. None of these came to a consensus. Looks like they gave up. |
|
|
::We had a discussion on this page in 2019, see ], also with no consensus. In it I did an (unsystematic) survey of recently published astronomy books and there didn't seem to be a consensus, some capitalized and some didn't. I suppose someone could look at the major refereed astronomical journals, and see if there is a consensus policy in those. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 06:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The astronomical books stored in my local library use the capitalized Universe. I think the consensus among the estabished astronomical societies is to treat Universe as a proper noun and always capitalizing the word, which is the same method they use to resolve the Earth/earth issue. ] (]) 08:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Here's a list of books that don't capitalize: |
|
|
:::* |
|
|
:::* |
|
|
:::* |
|
|
:::* |
|
|
:::* |
|
|
:::* |
|
|
:::* |
|
|
:::* |
|
|
:::* |
|
|
:::* |
|
|
:::* |
|
|
:::* |
|
|
::::Here's a list of books that capitalize: |
|
|
:::* |
|
|
:::* |
|
|
:::* |
|
|
:::* |
|
|
:::* |
|
|
:::* |
|
|
:::* |
|
|
::::It doesn't seem there is a consensus either way. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 18:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::I think all proper nouns begin with the ] are always capitalized (e.g. the Sun, the Moon, the ], and the ] etc.). ] (]) 08:38, 6 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''COMMENT''' We should use the capitalized "Universe" to describe the physical universe which we are a part of, and use the lower case "universe" to describe a fictional universe which often appears in comic books or games. |
|
|
:For this article, the capitalized "Universe" should be used. ] (]) 23:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Removals == |
|
|
|
|
|
@] seems to have removed a lot of highly verifiable information from the article, as it isn't inline cited. I figure it's best just to ] so people can readd it with citations. ]] 17:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:@] @] How can anyone ever say “the universe is expanding” if the Universe is supposed to be all of everything that ever happened/s in all of The 4D spacetime?! You’ve got me curious about the citations though. When I looked into this one, https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Universe&oldid=1235967637#cite_note-Zeilik1998-11, I found it is just a Gloss from an introductory text book: https://archive.org/details/introductoryastr0000zeil/page/n643/mode/2up?q=totality, https://archive.org/details/introductoryastr0000zeil/page/n643/mode/2up?q=Glossary. Then these three were just enclyclopedia britanica, https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Universe&oldid=1235967637#cite_note-Britannica-22, merriam-webster dictionary, https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Universe&oldid=1235967637#cite_note-23, and dictionary dot com, https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Universe&oldid=1235967637#cite_note-24. And then this one https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Universe&oldid=1235967637#cite_note-Schreuder2014-25 linked to a page from a huge book that may have had valid science somewhere, in some section, but linked directly to non-scientific philosophizing the likes of: “Of course, definitions are a matter of taste. And I prefer to write it with a capital U as there is only one of it, and I am of the personal opinion that the Universe has some sort of spiritual ‘personality’, be it, of course, of a non-human kind.” Are these adequate Sources?! Earnestly, ] (]) 03:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Not sure myself as to whether the citations are adequate, but I do not feel it's necessary to deliberate here what I understand to be an incontrovertible (if abstract) claim in modern cosmology. ]] 03:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Has there never been a better reference for it though? ] (]) 03:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I'm sure there is. (To be clear, I'm not a major contributor to this article myself, I'm just peeking in now and then in response to the activity of others. Not to exclude the possibility, but the idea of digging in and working on this one myself is consistently frightening to me.)]] 04:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I can’t imagine a part of an equation trying to calculate an integral over all d4 either /s ] (]) 04:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== clarification of graphic == |
|
|
|
|
|
Ehhh, since I paid the attention: @] , You recently edited the Universe page https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Universe&oldid=1236729776 regarding the label of a graphic that appears on that page https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Universe&diff=1236729776&oldid=1235967637. The source of that “image” https://commons.wikimedia.org/search/?title=File:Extended_universe_logarithmic_illustration_(English_annotated).png&oldid=857746539 refers to it as a “graphic” (Find: “Get this graphic on a quality metal plate”) and the Misplaced Pages link validly refers to it as an “illustration.” It could also be called a “cartoon.” It is a “construction” saved as an image file. To the extent that Misplaced Pages can afford the extra two characters, we should favor the more informative label “graphic?” ] (]) 03:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Yes, you have a point. ] (]) 03:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::cheers! ] (]) 04:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA from 2015 that have multiple problems. I posted this comments 20 days ago, but it seems that nobody is willing to update that article and thus GAR is required.
The article is not bad, but currently lacks citations is several sections. Chronology and the Big Bang is mostly unsourced, with cn and clarification needed tags. Physical properties uses really strange source ("Antimatter". Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council", see citation 44). Age and expansion ends with a strange sentence This acceleration does not, however, imply that the Hubble parameter is currently increasing; see deceleration parameter for details.
Spacetime has unsourced sentences. Support of life is just a few sentences with really strange sourcing: "Isaak, Mark, ed. (2005). "CI301: The Anthropic Principle". Index to Creationist Claims." (see citation 78). Halfs of Dark energy and Ordinary matter are unsourced. Same for Hadrons.
Historical conceptions are also problematic. Half is unsourced, and the sourced parts are often built on really old sources: see "Stcherbatsky, F. Th. (1930, 1962)" (citation 152), citation 13 lacks year and page, cit 150 lacks year. Astronomical concepts is either unsourced or sourced to "Aristotle; Forster, E. S.; Dobson, J. F. (1914)"; the article abruptly ends with The modern era of physical cosmology began in 1917, when Albert Einstein first applied his general theory of relativity to model the structure and dynamics of the universe.
with nothing about modern era.
There is also a question on talk page about the audio version being outdated (13 June 2012 (!)) - maybe it should simply be removed? Artem.G (talk) 17:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
level-2 vital article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
The redirect God (artwork) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 21 § God (artwork) until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)