On 2/3/08, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 03/02/2008, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org>
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
Rather than "notable" or "verifiable", which obviously don't apply
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
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
Well, we need to stick to the observable universe,
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.