Talk:Everything

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Everything 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.

Article policies

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

This article was nominated for deletion on April 7, 2024. The result of the discussion was WP:SNOW keep.

A fact from Everything appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 1 April 2009 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Wikipedia now has an article about everything?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2009/April.

Wikipedia

Philosophy 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.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Physics Mid‑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.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sources[edit]

These sources are pretty poor - we need more than an author's name.-Wafulz (talk) 12:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I revisited the main article and added more details to them. Mikael Häggström (talk) 09:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks.-Wafulz (talk) 13:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opening Sentence should be revised[edit]

"Everything could be you or me, it may be the world, the universe, the solar system, all physical objects and sometimes also all abstract objects. It is contrasted with nothing."

not exactly the most scholarly tone, is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.171.137 (talk) 21:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just thinking the same thing. Also, "Everything could be you or me..." implies that you could be everything. When of course, you aren't everything (though I am, of course). I have changed it to something a bit more accurate (and encyclopedic), hope it satisfies. -kotra (talk) 23:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

eveuthing/ rainbow bubbles. by owen michael john gilvarry[edit]

the smallest unit of atomics is a rainbow bubble. it encompasses all elements and colours. insane theory is linke to the everything story along with potential theory. we beleive insane theory absolves everyone from blame because we have all been every infinite possibility,potential. evil is insane. we all have moments of insanity and we all have moments of love. if we realise self responsibility and that all our ancestors are related and have been so from the begining we will realise we have been hitler,stalin, princess di,mother teresa. venus. we have all been equally good and bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.229.154 (talk) 13:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts, but this talk page is just for discussion about improving the article Everything. Also, how did you know I'm Stalin? -kotra (talk) 19:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Links to all Wiki Pages and Templates[edit]

Shouldn't all pages and templates be linked to this page? Humor, of course, but, then again. . . Randy Kryn (talk) 15:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nowai[edit]

You mean liek the whole thing?! Everything?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.24.135 (talk) 15:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anchoring the silliness[edit]

"Everything" isn't really a philosophical concept of any worth. There are Sartre's Totalisations and the like but the actual concept that receives some traction in the tradition is Nothingness, so put that in the lede. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 17:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AfD[edit]

I'm tempted to nominate this article for deletion on the basis of the implicit claim that everything is notable. Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:34, 17 December 2017 (UTC) Everything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.83.102.139 (talk) 01:37, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first time I've had a good laugh in a long time. Usersnipedname (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]