Talk:Entity

Changes to the article

I'm thinking about implementing changes to this article with the hope of moving it in the direction of GA status. The current article is bare-bones: it is a start-class article with a readable prose size of merely 364 words and is mostly unsourced (there is only a single source, used for a quotation).

The article needs a definition-section to explain how the term is commonly defined by academic sources, often as something that exists and is identifiable. Words like being, object, and thing are frequently used as synonyms but some authors distinguish them, which should be addressed somewhere. Many different types of entities are discussed in the academic discourse, such as abstract vs concrete entities, particular vs universal entities, independent vs dependent entities, physical vs mental entities, observable vs theoretical entities, and non-existent entities. They could be covered in a section called "Types". Another key point is the different principles and theories regarding entities, such as the problem of identity (e.g. the slogan "no entity without identity"), composition, boundaries, change and persistence, ontological commitments, Ockham's razor, and realism vs anti-realism. The concept of entities plays different roles in different areas, such as metaphysics, logic, linguistics/semantics, computer science and information science, law, and business. This could be covered in a separate section. To conclude, a short history section could trace the most important chronological developments of the concept and related theories.

There are more issues to consider, but they can be addressed later since the points mentioned so far will already involve a lot of work to implement. I was hoping to get some feedback on these ideas and possibly other suggestions. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:31, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Entity/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Phlsph7 (talk · contribs) 12:32, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Wikipedian12512 (talk · contribs) 13:47, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

I’ll do this. Feel free to ping me if I forget. Cheers, _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 13:47, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi Wikipedian12512, thanks for reviewing the article! Phlsph7 (talk) 16:32, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

No problem! Thanks for making a long article about philosophy! I’ve recently been listening to a philosophy podcast, so I may have slightly unbalanced knowledge (40 minutes of knowledge on every philosopher before Rome, and no knowledge after that), so please forgive me if I want to see more of Heraclitus or Plato (arguably Socrates). Cheers, _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 17:23, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Initial thoughts here:

I think there should be something on forms in the lede, maybe more parts of the history too. The idea of entities possessing forms was an idea that left its mark.

The topic of forms is currently addressed by the sentence on universals in the lead. I expanded it a little. I also added an additional sentence to better summarize the history section. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:22, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

The Ari Shankara picture seems slightly misleading; there were plenty of philosophers who believed in unity before that. Zeno's paradoxes were a point that showed movement (and thus multiplicity) to be impossible (so long as an physically object didn’t exist), and were inspired by Parmenides’ ideas, since he thought this would be basically the only path for a stable world (I think, it’s been a while so I might be confusing traits). I’d just add a fine print saying that it had existed before.

I added a footnote on Parmenides's monism. The caption of the image does claim that Shankara was the first to suggest a type of monism, so we should be fine. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:22, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

I'd remove examples in lede. Cheers, _{In solidarity}User:Wikipedian12512(alt) (Talking is fine | contribs) 16:00, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Do you mean the ones in the second lead paragraph regarding the apple, the color red, etc.? I agree that it would help with concision and flow. My main concern is that readers may not be familiar with the philosophical concepts and may have difficulties without the examples. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:42, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Hmm. Good point, though I think it could be worded such that they are unnecessary. Cheers, _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 11:11, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

The concept of identity could be better explained. Cheers, _{In solidarity}User:Wikipedian12512(alt) (Talking is fine | contribs) 16:00, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:42, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

The quote ("no entity without identity") isn't needed. Cheers, _{In solidarity}User:Wikipedian12512(alt) (Talking is fine | contribs) 16:00, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:42, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

4th paragraph of lede seems more like two paragraphs chained together. I'd merge 2nd paragraph w/ 3rd, and split the fourth. Cheers, _{In solidarity}User:Wikipedian12512(alt) (Talking is fine | contribs) 16:00, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Implemented. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:42, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

It seems repetetive to keep stating that it is controversial whether nonentities constitute entities. Cheers, _{In solidarity}User:Wikipedian12512(alt) (Talking is fine | contribs) 16:12, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

I reformulated the image caption that had this expression. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:42, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

More unnecessary examples. Cheers, _{In solidarity}User:Wikipedian12512(alt) (Talking is fine | contribs) 16:12, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Which examples do you mean? Phlsph7 (talk) 10:42, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Red and 7; the things they are examples for is linked. Cheers, _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 11:15, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:03, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

I'd make etymology its own section. Cheers, _{In solidarity}User:Wikipedian12512(alt) (Talking is fine | contribs) 16:12, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

The etymology of the term entity is a minor topic: it gets little attention in overview sources and most don't mention it at all, so a separate section may overemphasize its relative importance. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:42, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

No need to mention "everything is a thing". Cheers, _{In solidarity}User:Wikipedian12512(alt) (Talking is fine | contribs) 16:12, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

I moved it to a footnote instead. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:42, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

I'd move the picture down to the Ontological Difference paragraph. Cheers, _{In solidarity}User:Wikipedian12512(alt) (Talking is fine | contribs) 16:12, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Moved. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:42, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

The two sentence paragraph at types seems out of place. Cheers, _{In solidarity}User:Wikipedian12512(alt) (Talking is fine | contribs) 16:30, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Do you mean the first paragraph of the section "Types"? Its purpose is to introduce the topic and to ensure neutrality by clarifying that the following types are proposed categories rather than definitive facts. We could move it into the first subsection (Particular and universal) but I think it fits better before it. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:42, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Good point. Cheers, _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 11:12, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Breaking it up for personal ease

And adding a sig so I can reply to myself: Cheers, _{In solidarity}User:Wikipedian12512(alt) (Talking is fine | contribs) 13:19, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Particular and universal section is quite good. Cheers, _{In solidarity}User:Wikipedian12512(alt) (Talking is fine | contribs) 13:23, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Same with concrete and abstract. Cheers, _{In solidarity}User:Wikipedian12512(alt) (Talking is fine | contribs) 13:26, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Again with the controversy on whether nonentities are entities. Maybe give it a section? Cheers, _{In solidarity}User:Wikipedian12512(alt) (Talking is fine | contribs) 13:28, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

I reformulated instead. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:32, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Possible, actual, and necessary is good. Cheers, _{In solidarity}User:Wikipedian12512(alt) (Talking is fine | contribs) 13:33, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Other types is good. Cheers, _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 14:17, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Identity and qualification could be more clear, though it is understandable enough. Cheers, _{In solidarity}User:Wikipedian12512(alt) (Talking is fine | contribs) 16:03, 2 November 2026 (UTC)