This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Physics Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Astronomy Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 21 August 2014, Olbers' paradox was linked from xkcd, a high-traffic website. (Traffic) All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history.

Archives (Index)

1 2

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Not sure if the example given in the quote from Topographia Christiana is really relevant for this article. Alternative English translation reads: "it was to receive the flame of the sun and of the moon and the countless hosts of the stars" ^[1]. It is unclear whether Cosmas Indicopleustes really thought about "infinity". Detrzyr (talk) 09:49, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two Talk entries here have been hidden by David Eppstein and replaced by prominent WP:OR notices. I disagree with hiding Talk entries on the basis that adding their information to the article would violate WP:OR. Talk entries violating WP policy should not be hidden; they should simply be marked as violating WP policy and no further action should be taken. My reason is that violators of WP policy frequently do so out of ignorance of the policy and do not deserve the punishment of having their words censored by hiding them. Note: I have no conflict of interest in this situation. David Spector (talk) 15:44, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A recent claim (see notice at top of this page), says, "Singular possessives should end with apostrophe + "s" regardless of spelling (MOS:POSS).

In this case, the WP manual of style violates several external stylebooks, including those of Associated Press and others. However, it accords with some style books that do not distinguish people's names, such as Los Angeles Times.

Also, there is a tradition behind the article title, and that tradition has always used the form Olbers' .

I regret that, due to an injury and a project, I do not have the time to do adequate research. But I do oppose the move to Olbers's. David Spector (talk) 16:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the move request was denied. So why was it moved. Shall it be reverted? — zmm ~talk~ 18:29, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zm14 and David spector: Yes, the undiscussed move should be reverted, also because it broke plenty of archive links. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:07, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With reference to the incorrect move despite the denied request, let's do it. How do we proceed? I can look for where to ask for help if needed. — zmm ~talk~ 12:37, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I made a request here. — zmm ~talk~ 16:57, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As per my original request above, the article should be moved back to Olbers'. But this move involves a change of "Olbers's" to "Olbers' " in many subtle places. I cannot volunteer to track these all down and change them, due to lack of time. But I do hope the changes eventually get done. There is quite a bit of inconsistency of usage on the web, but here are some supporting references: Encyclopedia Brittanica, Jim Al-Khalili, science popularizer, UC Riverside,Nature, EarthSky. David Spector (talk) 22:17, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• This was moved back today per a request at WP:RM/TR - thanks for pointing out the old RM discussion!ASUKITE 20:19, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am not sure I can further fix several instances of "Olbers's" that remain in the External links section of the article, for fear of breaking those links. David Spector (talk) 22:24, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The index of the talk page archives is not working. I found only one recent archive from the bot's revision history, but the box here is broken. Can it be fixed please? I thought maybe it has to do with the page renaming, but an edit I made failed to fix it. — zmm ~talk~ 18:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: fix is in place thanks to the kind help here. — zmm ~talk~ 06:35, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]