Template:Did you know nominations/Existence
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Bruxton talk 16:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Existence
- ... that there may be some things that do not exist? Source: [1][2]
- ALT1: ... that it is controversial whether there are non-existing objects? Source: [1][2]
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Lunar Ejecta and Meteorites (experiment)
Improved to Good Article status by Phlsph7 (talk). Self-nominated at 08:30, 24 December 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Existence; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
References
- ^ a b Casati, Filippo; Fujikawa, Naoya. "Existence". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 24 December 2023.
- ^ a b Reicher, Maria (2022). "Nonexistent Objects". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 24 December 2023.
@Phlsph7: No issues with the article - GA status, length, neutrality and sourcing all looks good. No copyvio in spotcheck. I'm concerned that ALT0 provides a opinion that would require an attribution. Perhaps an alternative to the first hook could be:
- ALT0a ... that it has been theorized that some things do not exist?
- Otherwise, ALT1 looks good. Let me know how you feel about the alt hook and I'll approve it ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 10:06, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Freedom4U: Regarding ALT0, I used the formulation "there may be" to have a simpler formulation that does not require attribution. But I understand your concern. To make the weaseling in ALT0a not as obvious, we could use:
- ALT0b: ... that it is controversial whether there are things that do not exist?
- I would also be fine with using ALT1. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:23, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Alright, sounds good (in fact, I think ALT0b is even more hooky than the original). ALT0b and ALT1 are
approved. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 10:26, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Phlsph7 and Freedom4U: Interesting, but we have a 55% score at Earwig with some copying that should be addressed. Bruxton (talk) 05:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, they are quotes (
Ronald McDonald does not exist
,it is not the case that there is a unique happy hamburger clown
), chapter titles that are being cited, (1. Existence as a Second-Order Property and Its Relation to Quantification
,3. How Many Ways of Being Existent?
,1. Frege and Russell: Existence is not a Property of Individuals
,3. An Anti-Meinongian First-Order View
), or stock phrases (the domain of quantification
,the property of being
,existence is a first-order property
,existence is a universal property
). I found one close paraphrase and reformulated it. Phlsph7 (talk) 06:59, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, they are quotes (
- @Phlsph7 and Freedom4U: Interesting, but we have a 55% score at Earwig with some copying that should be addressed. Bruxton (talk) 05:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Alright, sounds good (in fact, I think ALT0b is even more hooky than the original). ALT0b and ALT1 are
- @Freedom4U: Regarding ALT0, I used the formulation "there may be" to have a simpler formulation that does not require attribution. But I understand your concern. To make the weaseling in ALT0a not as obvious, we could use:
