Talk:The Void (philosophy)

needs

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 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Appearances In Videogames: Add Minecraft?

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)

Requested move 18 August 2024

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)

---

• The Void (philosophy) → The Void
• The Void → The Void (disambiguation)

– 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)

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)

@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)

• Oppose. No primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Necrothesp: there is according to criteria 2 of 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. Skyerise (talk) 11:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

  I'm fully aware of that, thank you. I actually think The Void should be merged with Void. As I said, there is no primary topic, by long-term significance or otherwise. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:31, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment The disambiguation page at The Void should be merged to Void per WP:DABCOMBINE. Regarding the primary topic, I agree that the philosophical concept is far more notable than any of the various artworks titled "The Void", but I don't know if the article itself disambiguates it well enough from the scientific concepts at Void, some of whom might come close in notability. Come to think of it, I am not even sure that the "The" is needed and that it shouldn't be titled Void (philosophy). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

  • support these proposals merge and drop the 'the'—blindlynx 14:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

  support merging the void with void, the expectation when reading about the void is that there is no difference with void. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 05:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. While this is an important topic in metaphysics, the term has many other common uses. There may be reasons to merge The Void into Void, but that that discussion should occur on talk page of the affected articles and not here in a move discussion for a separate topic. older ≠ wiser 15:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose I've never heard of the philosophy thing, it doesn't have a wiki article in my native language (in fact, apart from The Void (virtual reality), all the other The Void articles have equal or more interwiki links than the philosophy thing) -- it's clearly not the primary topic. By the same argument, Club (weapon) is clearly millennia older than any other Club, yet we have Club as a dab page. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:28, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support per long-term significance. Skyerise proves their case here. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:PT1. Per WikiNav, this is the third most common clickthrough from The Void — after The Void (2016 film) and The Void (2001 film) and followed closely by Void (another disambiguation page) in fourth place. (Numbers: 99, 35, 20, 15.) When a topic so clearly fails PT1, an assertion of PT2 is not sufficient. SilverLocust 💬 21:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

---

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)

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.