Talk:Q1

Italian description

"Insieme di tutto ciò che esiste" translates as "everything that exists". It's not really helpful in my opinion: does anybody have other ideas for the description?--Senpremì (talk) 21:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Seems done (insieme di tutto ciò che esiste). Conny (talk) 19:44, 24 January 2015 (UTC).

No, it's still the Italian description. --Stryn (talk) 19:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

All or part of existence?

Wouldn't the multiverse be absolutely everything there is? Jacob's Crackers (talk) 20:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

No, multiverse (Q3327819) consists of several Q1. And Mulligan (Q3327619) is about comics :) (Note from jacob: fixed) --Infovarius (talk) 22:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

That's my point, there is a synonym 'existence' listed which would apply better to the multiverse if it's real. I have therefore removed 'existence'. Jacob's Crackers (talk) 20:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Universe (Q1) is member of a group (Q36809769)?

We have class (Q17519152), group of hypothetical and non-hypothetical objects: multiverse (Q3327819). So, Universe (Q1) is member of a group (Q36809769), object of multiverse (Q3327819)? --Fractaler (talk) 12:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

May be to delete Q36809769? Just to not mislead and misuse. --Infovarius (talk) 19:56, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Has an alternative been found? Just to compare the strength of the modelling. Where is? Fractaler (talk) 20:16, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Universe (Q1) is abstract entity (Q7184903)?

Now: Universe (Q1) -> universe (Q36906466) -> class (Q5127848) -> abstract entity (Q7184903) --Fractaler (talk) 09:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

@Fractaler:, no, universe (Q36906466) isn't a subclass of (P279) of class (Q5127848). It's instance of (P31), which isn't transitive. --Yair rand (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

@Yair rand:, universe (Q36906466) is class (Q5127848)?--Fractaler (talk) 17:41, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

@Fractaler: universe (Q36906466) instance of (P31) class (Q5127848), but not subclass of (P279) class (Q5127848). X P31 Y and Y P31 Z does not imply that X P31 Z. --Yair rand (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

X is Y?Fractaler (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Swahili

Should the swahili description be "mbingu, dunia"?

Current Description Is Too Long

The current description for Universe (Q1) is significantly longer than what is recommended in Help:Description. I am unable to make any changes to the item myself, so if someone else cpuld that would greatly appreciated. On a similar note, the current description seems to conflict with the description of multiverse (Q3327819) I was wondering if anyone had any ideas on how to resolve such a conflict. The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

There is no conflict between the description of multiverse (Q3327819) and Universe (Q1) because the description of multiverse (Q3327819) includes the word "hypothetical". It is not surprising that a hypothesis conflicts with existing accepted theories. The conflict will be resolved if and when the hypothesis is proven or disproven. Jc3s5h (talk) 07:15, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

The multiverse stuff is a bit of a distraction, so it's true that there's no contradiction; multiverse (Q3327819) is clearly labelled as hypothetical. In any case, "the Universe", capitalised, normally means the real physical Universe, not a generic model universe (lower case); whether the term should exclude the part outside of the particle horizon (Q2482717) and/or be restricted to the past light cone (Q1137903) and its interior is a fluctuating choice of definition and context, so "in principle physically reachable" is misleading: without tachyon (Q41995)s, distant galaxies at the current cosmological time are spacelike separated from us, so those spacetime events (distant galaxies, now) are in principle unreachable from our spacetime location (here, now). Boud (talk) 00:44, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Todo list

• diameter (P2386) should have a point in time (P585) qualifier, along with some more statements indicating diameter at various other points in time.
• volume as quantity (P2234) should be added, assuming this is a known quantity.
• Maybe replace start time (P580) statement with inception (P571)? I think using P571 here would fit the intended use more accurately.
  • Whichever property is used, there should probably be some historic estimates with deprecated rank.
• Most of the child astronomical body (P398) statements should have start time (P580) qualifiers, assuming that information is known.
• There should be a mass (P2067) statement.

--Yair rand (talk) 07:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• suggestion for P2910 ...

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Universe_bw.svg

Creator property

Earth (Q2) has a creator (P170) property with values God in Christianity (Q825), no value, and Big Bang (Q323) (last one added by me). Should this item have a creator (P170) property, and what values should it have? Or should it be removed from both items? I added a creator (P170) earlier, but it was reverted.

The "none" value is explained at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikibase/DataModel/Primer#none

That states "None means that we know that the given property has no value, e.g. Elizabeth I of England had no spouse." But there is no consensus about whether the universe or the earth has a creator. So stating the value is "none" is inappropriate.

I'm not sure whether it is wise to create a long list of values for the creator with a qualifier indicating which group holds that belief. I'd take it to Wikidata:Project chat. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

In this case I think "unknown value" is more appropriate. RPI2026F1 (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Swedish description

Can someone replace the use of "per" in the Swedish-language description? It uses that word incorrectly. My suggested replacement would be "efter definitionen". Geolodus (talk) 18:18, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

"Icon"?

I'm kinda new at Wikidata, but I'm pretty sure THE UNIVERSE doesn't have an official logo. --QuickQuokka (talk) 16:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Capitalisation of "Universe"

Why is the title of this item capitalised? I find that it is usually rendered in sentence case (i.e. "universe") usually when referring to this. Alisperic (talk) 12:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I think usually when capitalized Universe refers to this/our universe and when it isn't it's broader. See here and here. I think Wikipedia used to capitalize it which makes sense, did they change it? I don't know if there also is usage of the capitalized version to refer to the Universe as encompassing other worlds in the sense of "multiverse" in that it's all that is at some point. Also see explanations (like from here): "'Universe' is capitalized as we capitalize 'Earth,' and it's not [capitalized] if it just describes a category.". Prototyperspective (talk) 18:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Compare with universe (Q36906466) (or physical universe (Q7189631)). Infovarius (talk) 21:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)