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. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (center, color, defense, realize, traveled) and some terms 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

This  level-2 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Philosophy: Metaphysics / Science Mid‑importance Philosophy portal 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. 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. 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. 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.

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.

Should "universe" be capitalized?

I asked Google AI about it. The answer is as follows:

Q: Should "universe" be capitalized?

A: Whether or not to capitalize "universe" depends on the context. When referring to the entirety of existence, it's generally capitalized, like a proper noun. However, when referring to a specific, smaller universe (like a fictional universe in a game), or when using it generically, it's typically lowercase.

Here's a more detailed breakdown:

Capitalized:

1. When referring to the single, encompassing cosmos, all of space, time, and matter. This is often used in cosmological discussions.

2. When referring to our specific universe, as in "our Universe," or when distinguishing it from other theoretical universes within a multiverse.

3. When used as part of a proper name, like "Miss Universe" (a beauty pageant).

Lowercase:

1. When referring to a universe as a general concept or a subset of the larger cosmos (e.g., "many different universes," "the video-game universe").

2. When referring to a specific universe within a larger concept (e.g., a multiverse).

3. When used in a way that's not a proper noun or a specific entity.

Since this article discusses "universe" as the single, encompassing cosmos, all of space, time, and matter. Shouldn't it be treated as a proper noun, and hence, capitalized? 2001:8003:9060:601:49B5:9FB:94BE:DF96 (talk) 11:51, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The capitalization is per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters:

• only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia.

Since AI sources are unreliable, its claims are irrelevant. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Johnjbarton. As with many things, Google AI is wrong. This subject has been discussed many times on this page, without resolution. Last year I did an informal survey of books in the field, and there doesn't seem to be a consensus. I don't care which way this goes and I suggest we leave it as it is. --Chetvorno^TALK 18:54, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Level 1 Vital Article?

The universe in itself consists of everything. Every life form, every single object that man has founded, and every single action done by an organism both known and unknown. The universe contains all our societies and planets, all of our accomplishments and feets, and everything we know as mankind. So it baffles me that the universe is only a level 2 vital article, I think it should be a level one vital article as without the universe you wouldn't have the 10 things which are considered level 1 vital articles. 24.211.100.58 (talk) 02:42, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are only 10 Level one articles in Wikipedia, 100 level two. The choices are not made through discussions here.

If you think the topic is important, help improve it to Wikipedia:Featured articles status. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:02, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]