Talk:Universe

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Universe article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4: 90 days

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Universe has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 3, 2006	Good article nominee	Not listed
January 30, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
February 10, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed
November 10, 2007	Good article reassessment	Delisted
April 1, 2011	Articles for deletion	Speedily kept
August 29, 2015	Good article nominee	Listed
March 7, 2023	Good article reassessment	Kept
This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of August 29, 2015.
Current status: Good article

Philosophy: Metaphysics / Science Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Metaphysics
	Philosophy of science

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

Physics Top‑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 articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Spoken Wikipedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken 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.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia articles

GAR

Universe

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept per consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:01, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I think a public-outreach website from the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council is a decent source for a general statement like that, all things told. It would be nice to have a citation that isn't an archived copy of a web page, and we can swap it out, but I wouldn't stress over it. The Index to Creationist Claims is probably also OK for mainstream scientific responses to pseudoscientific nonsense, and thus for short summaries of mainstream positions on out-there speculation.

In "Ordinary matter", the stuff about four familiar phases plus BECs and such is standard, and a decent college textbook would be a reasonable source. I will try to dig up the Allday book which is cited in the "Hadrons" section; it might cover that whole paragraph already. XOR'easter (talk) 13:41, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs to me that we recently put Planet and Solar system through successful FA reviews, and the historical material in those could also be applicable here. It took a long time for the Universe to be recognized as a much bigger thing than the solar system, after all. XOR'easter (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the last remaining cn from the Chronology section after adding links to the flatness and horizon problems, which were being alluded to, but unclearly. These are quite complicated ideas and so best not to attempt to summarise in a sentence or two. PaddyLeahy (talk) 00:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's in better shape now. I'll leave it for someone else to decide whether it is "Good". XOR'easter (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep looks good, and I trust XOR's knowledge more than my own ability to assess. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, thanks to XOR article looks better now! Artem.G (talk) 10:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above 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.

Space and time

While spacetime is a technical term, the universe is spacetime and its contents. The interaction of space and time is part of science (see theory of relativity). 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 WP:OL. Closetside (talk) 23:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think linking the tactile concepts is much more helpful and intuitive for a general audience. Your conception of WP:OL 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. Remsense诉 23:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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, space and time redirects to spacetime. Closetside (talk) 23:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. Remsense诉 23:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While Wikipedia should be accessible to the general, nontechnical reader, it should be technically accurate. Closetside (talk) 00:00, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it bothers you doesn't make it inaccurate. The scope of the article is broader than a physics context. Remsense诉 00:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get a WP:3O. Closetside (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If someone else agrees with you, I'm sure they'll let me know. Remsense诉 00:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TLDR for 3O

While we both agree the first sentence should be: "The universe is space and time and their contents.", we disagree on how linking should occur for "space and time".

My opinion: space and time. Spacetime is a concept within the theory of relativity, 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.
Remsense's opinion: space and time. 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.

@Remsense, feel free to provide your TLDR of this dispute if you want. Closetside (talk) 00:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response to third opinion request:

The current version seems much preferable to me. We know that the purpose of the first sentence is to introduce the topic to nonspecialist readers in plain English. We also know that lead links should not be required for the general reader to understand—it should be intelligible on sight. We have individual articles on space and time 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. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 proper noun? According to English grammar rules, all proper nouns should be capitalized, isn't it? 120.16.2.76 (talk) 10:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. Bible, United States. And no, not all proper names are capitalized in English, that's an oversimplification that works most of the time: other exceptions include summer, Remsense诉 10:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MOS has had several discussions about this, one in 2014 Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 14#Capitalization of universe, a long one with an RfC in 2015 Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 18#Try again for "Universe/universe" consensus? one in 2016 Wikipedia Talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 23#Universe v. universe. None of these came to a consensus. Looks like they gave up.

We had a discussion on this page in 2019, see Talk:Universe/Archive 4#Capitalization of Universe, 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. --Chetvorno^TALK 06:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. 120.16.2.76 (talk) 08:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Chetvorno^TALK 18:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think all proper nouns begin with the definite article are always capitalized (e.g. the Sun, the Moon, the Tibetan Plateau, and the National Basketball Association etc.). 120.16.2.76 (talk) 08:38, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. 58.152.51.59 (talk) 23:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removals

@Chirpy-slirpy-BURPY 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 put the diff here so people can readd it with citations. Remsense诉 17:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chirpy-slirpy-BURPY @Remsense 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/w/index.php?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/w/index.php?title=Universe&oldid=1235967637#cite_note-Britannica-22, merriam-webster dictionary, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universe&oldid=1235967637#cite_note-23, and dictionary dot com, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universe&oldid=1235967637#cite_note-24. And then this one https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?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, NedBoomerson (talk) 03:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. Remsense诉 03:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Has there never been a better reference for it though? NedBoomerson (talk) 03:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.)Remsense诉 04:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t imagine a part of an equation trying to calculate an integral over all d4 either /s NedBoomerson (talk) 04:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

clarification of graphic

Ehhh, since I paid the attention: @Fluffy89502 , You recently edited the Universe page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universe&oldid=1236729776 regarding the label of a graphic that appears on that page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universe&diff=1236729776&oldid=1235967637. The source of that “image” https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia can afford the extra two characters, we should favor the more informative label “graphic?” NedBoomerson (talk) 03:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you have a point. Fluffy89502 (talk) 03:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

cheers! NedBoomerson (talk) 04:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]