Talk:Goldilocks principle

Shouldn't "astrological principles" be "astronomical principles" in the first paragraph? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.117.109.20 (talk) 16:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Delete please !!! Delete, Delete, Delete

This article takes a simple idiom and uses it to define a POV. It appears to be almost completely own research and uses like 3 references which are more relevant to other articles. I'm sorry, but I can't find anything redeeming about it. Its all very bollocks "science".

How does one take seriously any article that pretends to be astronomy but can't capitalise the Earth or the Sun, confuses Sun with star and uses the words "more stricter" or "simple and rugged planetary system" and that considers mammals and reptiles to be the only forms of complex life !

"complicated interlocking set of parameters which optimize and protect the planet within the solar system" - from WHAT exactly ???

"As the subset of protective parameters become more advanced so does the level of the emergence of life" WTF ??

Please explain how the "presence of tectonic plates" is a Goldilocks principle ? Are we talking 5 plates, 7, 11 ??? Isn't this a boolean statement ? And haven't both mammalian and reptilian "classifications" both arisen on this planet pretty much at the same time around 300 mya.

Most of what is said here is simply repeating the Rare Earth Hypothesis (less intelligently) - the rest belongs in habitable zone and evolution. --EvenGreenerFish (talk) 03:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• Please calm down. The article is not about astronomy, but about a general principle applicable in many fields, that of finding something which is "neither too X nor too Y but just right". I've removed the large unsourced chunk of text which was added in August 2011, which unbalanced the article and seems to have caused your problems with it, and have added a couple of sourced usages in other fields. PamD 17:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• • Thats a good start, but the truth be known its not actually a principle, "effect" is the more accurate term. I have attacked the article again, and deleted more uncited material. Additionally, I found that far too many references were self-published (ie Blogger etc) and certainly not suitable as encyclopedia citations.--EvenGreenerFish (talk) 22:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Minor observation about content

Shouldn't there be a reference to the Anthropic Principle somewhere in this article? MuLevaD (talk) 13:52, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

What is the principle

The Goldilocks principle states that when some quality of the items in a sufficiently large given sample can be arranged on a scale ranging from one extreme to another extreme (for example from extremely cold to extremely hot), some items will fall in a moderate range between these extremes.

Umm. What? --174.112.129.234 (talk) 00:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

On closer look, the whole page looks like another Wikipedia SNAFU. Maybe this should just be a disambiguation page. --174.112.129.234 (talk) 00:18, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

About this article

I've heard the Goldilocks principle being used in Big History as well as other disciplines, so I believe it deserves an article. Problem is, the term is not clearly defined -- not much intellectual rigor -- but I don't think it needs it because it is so obvious, that is, the children's story is so clear, the idea is so clear, that writing this article is a bit tricky -- like trying to write about something which is so obvious and clear, like trying to write a dictionary definition of the word "the". So I rewrote the lede paragraph to try to make it clear. I don't think we need to talk about all of the things Goldilocks tested, but stick with one -- the porridge. In researching, I found numerous instances of the term, but few instances in which it was defined, again, since it is so obvious, I don't think anybody needs to define it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 09:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, very good reasons not to have an article. Wikipedia shouldn't try to come up with an original definition of "the". Let's just make a disambiguation page and point at some existing articles. --174.112.129.234 (talk) 05:42, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Claim regarding the use of Goldilocks principle in mathemaics has a bad reference

In mathematics, the "Goldilocks Zone" is often used to refer the near horizontal "shelf area" of many third-degree – and higher – polynomials such as ƒ(x)=x³.

If open the PDF serving as reference to this statement, it doesn't contain "Goldilocks", hence, should not be used as a proving reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.8.205.189 (talk) 22:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Contrary to the leading Paragraph the Goldilocks story is not "well known across cultures". It is only the english-speaking World (that is the part of the World, that is dominated by people who speak English) where this story is known by children. And in an article that mentions (at least in passing) life in the universe I would have expected to see at least the caveat "across earth cultures"! 89.204.139.222 (talk) 07:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)