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.
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.
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. Please participate by editing the article Cosmology, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
This article is part of WikiProject Jainism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Jainism. Please participate by editing the article Cosmology, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
I'd be happy to help, provided it's within my ability, but I'm not sure what you are asking for. What do you mean when you say "combine links?" Can you elaborate? Zaereth (talk) 18:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your interest Zaereth. I meant what's inside the link, i.e., I need to combine Cosmology article's section 3 "Historical cosmologies" together with Timeline of cosmological theories article's content. I must warn, it's hard! You'll be confused with the dates, the names, the models names. Try to amend them together. Keep it in the same layout as the Timeline of cosmological theories article's content. Start from the Cosmology article's section 3 "Historical cosmologies" last row, try to insert it in the Timeline of cosmological theories article's content. Start with the date, as you go up you'll get confused with the name and date, then date and model, then everything... -- (Russell.mo (talk) 09:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC))
Is there a possibility Paradoctor, since some of it relate with each other, merging by creating a separate article as a whole? -- (Russell.mo (talk) 20:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC))
Lots of articles are related to each other, why should we merge? What would be the topic of the article you are proposing? How would it improve Wikipedia? Paradoctor (talk) 21:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I see your problem, but agree with Paradoctor in that I don't see the reason why you would want to do such a merge. What benefit will there be for the reader? What would such an article be titled? The title of an article should summarize its purpose in a few short words, so in figuring out what to call this article, perhaps that would help us understand its intended purpose.
If I understand you correctly, what you are trying to do is a huge undertaking. If your goal is to create a timeline of the evolution of all the different cosmological theories, I foresee that as being a nearly impossible task. (Maybe not completely impossible, but very, very difficult indeed.) One of the main problems is that many of these theories have been evolving and changing simultaneously. If the goal is to assemble them all into one timeline, then it may be easiest to create a timeline for each individual theory, and then try to combine them, but that will be difficult to do without causing great confusion, as many of these theories were growing at the same times.
Such a task is going to take a lot of research. I would suggest instead of merging, try writing the article from scratch, which will actually be much easier than trying to merge conflicting information already in Wikipedia articles. The thing to remember is that Wikipedia articles are not considered to be reliable sources, so they cannot be used to create a new article. Not to mention (no offense to the authors) that these two articles are poorly lacking in inline citations, so it is difficult to verify that the info is correct. You may want to start by reading the sources themselves, and looking into other sources. (Perhaps try adding inline sources to this article and correcting any conflicting information could help too.) Then think hard bout how you want the article to be laid out, so that it will be easy for a reader to follow. Most of all, consider what the benefit of such an article would be for the reader, and why Wikipedia needs such an article, and give it a good, corresponding title. There are many good links to information about writing articles. You can find a link on my page, or check User:Tony1's page for some really great information. I hope that helps, and good luck. Zaereth (talk) 23:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I think what you suggest would simply be expanding the existing timeline article, and reformatting it. Nothing against it. Let me note, though, that the list in the Cosmology article serves a distinct purpose from a timeline, and will, in all probability, get its own article sooner or later. Also, upon rereading, I realized that something else is missing: History of cosmology. Paradoctor (talk) 10:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for delaying in getting back to you guys. Yes Paradoctor you are right, I also understand the distinction between the two articles aforementioned. I thought there would be a possibility to merge them since few bulletins are similar. Thanks anyways guys. Regards -- (Russell.mo (talk) 01:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC))
Yesterday I took out a bit of waffle but was promptly reverted. Maybe taking it a bit at a time; the picture at the top of the article has the caption "The Hubble eXtreme Deep Field (XDF) was completed in September 2012 and shows the farthest galaxies ever photographed by humans." I suggest removing the words "by humans" from the end. It is patently obvious that humans took the photo (even if indirectly via some automated process) and this doesn't need clarifying here. It also sounds daft. Any thoughts? 184.108.40.206 (talk) 20:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
That is not the way Wikipedia works. There is no consensus for your proposed changes whatsoever. David J Johnson (talk) 22:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I originally made the change a while ago. You reverted without discussion. I opened the discussion here, I got no response, so it's perfectly reasonable to assume that no one objects, hence my edit. Now - if you object, state your case here! If you fail to do so I'll make the edit again. Have you ever heard of bold, revert, discuss? 220.127.116.11 (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I had seen the comment but didn't bother replying because it was so obvious. I fully agree with the removal of the humans, so to speak. - DVdm (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Same as DVdm. David, can you please clarify for the rest of us what your objection is? Zaereth (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Frankly, because I felt it read better. There are loads of references throughout Wikipedia that refer to "humans". Also this unregistered IP needs to learn how we work, rather than arrogant comments. Case closed. David J Johnson (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I think the anon has learned a bit about how we work, so I'll close the case by removing the humans then . - DVdm (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Expert attention please at Big Bang Page: Elaboration and Citation
Some interested editors have highlighted a few sections of the Big Bang page that could use some expert attention for content elaboration and citation. Please see Talk:Big Bang. Thank you and I apologize if cross linking this way is not optimal. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Is Fate the correct term in the first sentence of this article?
Looking at the article for fate, it seems that fate refers to some actor making something happen. Perhaps "destiny" should be used instead, since destiny seems to refer to things working themselves out without intervention? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SocraticOath (talk • contribs) 20:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I prefer "fate." Both words are synonyms and interchangeable in this context, but destiny has the connotation of something turning out well, whereas "fate" has the connotation of something turning out badly. I'm sure the end of the universe will be a bad day for us all. Zaereth (talk) 23:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Questionable (and unattributed) list of questions for "Religious, mythological, and metaphysical cosmology"
The section "Religious, mythological, and metaphysical cosmology" contains a list of questions. Where do these questions come from? Observation of what scholars working in religion and metaphysics ask themselves? Or is it somebody's idea of what these fields involve? I ask because some of the questions seem overly general, so as not to be specific to cosmology. Consider: "What are the ultimate material components of the Universe? (see mechanism, dynamism, hylomorphism, atomism)." Mechanism and atomism seem like issues in core metaphysics, not in cosmology specifically. (Granted, sometimes people use "cosmology" to refer to everything in metaphysics that isn't ontology, but this article is using the term in a much narrower sense.)
Compare this list of concerns with the list given at "Cosmology and Theology" in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "[M]any of the theologically relevant questions related to current cosmology are old. Has the universe come into existence a finite time ago? Will it come to an end? Why are the cosmic evolution and the laws of nature of just such a kind that they permit intelligent life to exist? These and other questions of obvious relevance to theism are currently being discussed in the light of the most recent cosmological theories and observations, but the questions themselves (and, indeed, many of the answers) were familiar to medieval philosophers and theologians. This is also the case with the question that is sometimes considered the ultimate one: Why is there a cosmos?" These seem more specifically related to cosmology as it's understood as a sub-field in metaphysics and theology.2601:47:4001:7056:CAF7:33FF:FE77:D800 (talk) 11:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)