On 2/3/08, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/02/2008, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
The hypothesis can be verifiable.
In which case, we're talking about the notability of a hypothesis, not of a galaxy or an ETI. The hypothesis could have an article, but would a galaxy that's only claim to notability is being mentioned in this hypothesis warrant anything more than a redirect to the ariticle on the hypothesis?
Rather than "notable" or "verifiable", which obviously don't apply to hypothetics, "attributable" is the word you gentlemen are looking for. If we have an article about a hypothetical galaxy, it is (a) garden-variety sci-fi, or (b) the pipe dream of a leading astrophysicist.
In neither case would said galaxy necessarily exist, nor would it be worth mentioning if not directly attributed to somebody who might know what the fuck they're talking about.
In no case should it be presented "in-universe" (haha, sorry) as an actual fact.
Well, we need to stick to the observable universe, certainly - anything outside the observable universe is causally disconnected from us, so is certainly not notable.
Well, that's a bloody arbitrary place to draw the line. ;D
The total number of galaxies in the observable universe is in the billions, certainly.
Carl Sagan would have gotten a right chuckle out of Wikipedia if only he'd lived to see it.
—C.W.