Jump to content

Talk:The Void (philosophy)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

needs

[edit]

This page needs elaboration of the individual sections with particular concentration on the "The Void," and not merely repetitive or duplicated content regarding alternative or similar concepts of "nothingness." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 999VT (talkcontribs) 19:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Appearances In Videogames: Add Minecraft?

[edit]

Minecraft contains the Void below the Overworld and End dimensions ans well as both above and Below the Nether dimension. Ned Retherbrick (talk) 04:37, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 August 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is a clear consensus against the proposed move at this time. A merge with Void has been suggested, but does not appear to have garnered substantial support in this discussion, and is perhaps better suited for another discussion, appropriately templated. BD2412 T 21:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


– The Void (philosophy) is clearly the primary topic [added] per criteria 2 at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term; however the previous version of the article was mostly a long list of pop culture items. This has been corrected and this level-5 vital article should become the main page. Skyerise (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. is clearly the primary topic should be supplied by some objective source. Pageviews shows it isn't what readers are looking for when searching for this phrase. Gonnym (talk) 09:56, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: When a topic is ancient and yet still the primary meaning of the phrase, and all the other entries are simply named after the ancient topic, we use WP:COMMONSENSE per WP:IAR. Especially when the topic in question is a vital article, as having the vital article as the primary topic rather a disconnected list of eponymously-named modern media certainly improves Wikipedia. Do any of the other article entries have vital article status? IAR is policy for just this sort of reason: because Wikilawyering over guidelines sometimes leads to an inferior decision. This is just the sort of thing detractors point to when they call Wikipedia "stupid". Skyerise (talk) 10:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Currently there are 2 supports (Skyerise, Randy Kryn) for the move, 4 opposes for the move (Gonnym, older wiser (also supports discussing merge at appropriate venue), sgeureka, SilverLocust), 4 supports for the merge (Necrothesp, Chaotic Enby, blindlynx, Sir Kenneth Kho) Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 06:02, 27 August 2024 (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.