Talk:The Void (philosophy)

Latest comment: 2 months ago by BD2412 in topic Requested move 18 August 2024

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.