Talk:Binary stars in fiction

Image copyright problem with Image:TatooineSuns.jpg

The image Image:TatooineSuns.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Binary stars in fiction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140113174926/http://digitalsciencefiction.com/book-review-the-snow-queen-by-joan-d-vinge/ to http://digitalsciencefiction.com/book-review-the-snow-queen-by-joan-d-vinge/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:37, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Bold orange

The convention of identifying planets and stars is clearly novel and dubious. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Article name

This seems to be a bad name, since it isn't binary stars, it is multiple star star systems in fiction. That the article contains information about star systems with other than two stars makes the name inappropriate. -- 70.51.203.56 (talk) 10:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Cleaning this article up

This article has a whole bunch of cleanup templates at the top, and for good reason. It violates MOS:POPCULT in its entirety or close to it—there are two entries whose inclusion could maybe be argued to be justified (which is not to say that those entries are properly written). So I removed all but these two entries for not being MOS:POPCULT-compliant. Having looked at how WP:Reliable sources such as the "Star" entry in Brian Stableford's Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia, the "Stars" entry in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and the "Stars" entry in The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy all treat the subject—namely discussing binary/multiple stars and solitary stars in the same entry rather than having separate entries for them—I came to the conclusion that having separate Wikipedia articles for binary/multiple stars and solitary stars in fiction is not motivated based on the sources. So I made sure that the remaining entries were covered over at Stars and planetary systems in fiction (which also made this a WP:CONTENTFORK of that article) and then redirect there.

This was all reverted wholesale on the grounds that there should have been consensus to do so first. Of course, consensus to remove content that violates MOS:POPCULT already exists—that's how we ended up with the current phrasing of MOS:POPCULT, through fairly lengthy discussion about how best to handle this kind of material. Not only that, there is also quite a bit of precedent inasmuch as quite a few of these "X in fiction/popular culture/whatever" lists have been brought to WP:AfD recently(-ish) with the same outcome: pure TV Tropes-style lists that enumerate every time X is featured in fiction/popular culture/whatever being rejected in favour of rewriting the articles in prose form based on proper secondary/tertiary sources. See e.g. WP:Articles for deletion/Far future in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Eco-terrorism in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Earth in science fiction (2nd nomination), WP:Articles for deletion/Space stations and habitats in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Supernovae in fiction, and WP:Articles for deletion/Neptune in fiction. I would have turned this article into a prose article (like I did for e.g. Neptune in fiction) if I had found sufficient sourcing to motivate a stand-alone article on binary stars in fiction separate from a broader article on stars in fiction. I propose that we redo the WP:Blank and redirect since this is a plausible search term and there may be something useful in the edit history for e.g. TV Tropes or Wikia, but there does not seem to be sufficient MOS:POPCULT-compliant sources on the topic to support a stand-alone article as opposed to covering the topic in an article on a broader topic. TompaDompa (talk) 19:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for this detailed comment, I'd be happy to WP:Blank and redirect as long as there has been a thorough check and move through of any content to Stars and planetary systems in fiction which I didn't feel had happened first time round. In fact, that page as it stands is a list of five real stars that have fictional stories set in their systems, that page needs to have a new section on 'fictional star systems' or similar with the most notable of the content here added in. There are glaring gaps such as Tatooine's binary stars which are arguably the most well-known binaries in a fictional work with surely many non-primary references, from a quick search [1] (Hollywood Reporter), [2] (Forbes), [3] (Times), [4] (CNN). Tatooine is included here in this article but you decided to blank it and not move it to the redirect. It is that kind of decision that made me question your edits and ask for a quick 'brake' before we proceed. Happy for you to be WP:Bold but please try to WP:Preserve a little more of the most relevant content. Mountaincirque^talk 11:02, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Anyone can merge content from the page history, that's one of the benefits of redirecting instead of deleting. The reason I didn't merge anything about Tatooine is that it wasn't properly sourced, and it still isn't. Even the sources you linked above don't provide the kind of coverage MOS:POPCULT dictates—those are respectively a news story about the production about the the 2021 Dune adaptation, a news story about real binary stars, a news story about a real star system with three stars, and a news story about a real circumbinary planet, all of which briefly mention Tatooine. I don't mind mentioning Tatooine at the target, but it has to be in WP:PROPORTION to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. It might surprise you to find that even a source that does specifically deal with circumbinary planets in fiction, namely part of the "Planet" entry in Brian Stableford's Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia, does not mention Tatooine. TompaDompa (talk) 12:42, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I just think we need to use WP:Common sense. Star Wars is one of the world's biggest media franchises and biggest film franchise, and features a binary star in one of its most famous scenes, Esquire described it as one of the most striking images in film history in this long article on the meaning of that binary sunset: [5], so surely that deserves a mention? You seem reluctant to try to find sources for some reason rather than cutting content that is likely to be correct but maybe has a weak reference or an overly wordy description. Mountaincirque^talk 14:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

What I'm reluctant to do is to seek out sources for specific examples that I or other editors expect to find in the article, because doing that inevitably ends up reproducing and compounding editorial biases. That being said, it's not like I'm done surveying the sources and expanding stars and planetary systems in fiction, so I don't know where the sources will lead us. If we are to address conspicuous omissions, filling in the gaps once we have a solid foundation of an article based on sources about the general topic is a much better approach than shoehorning them in at an early stage. TompaDompa (talk) 15:59, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Mountaincirque. I think the approach you're taking here is a bit too WP:BUREAUcratic. The fact that Tatooine is frequently mentioned outside of a Star Wars-specific setting demonstrates its notability. TornadoLGS (talk) 15:06, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Tatooine's notability is relevant for whether it should have a stand-alone article, which it currently does. What's relevant to the article binary stars in fiction (or stars and planetary systems in fiction) is Tatooine's treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. What weight is it given in sources on those topics? TompaDompa (talk) 15:59, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I added a mention that circumbinary planets are sometimes nicknamed "Tatooine worlds". That's about as much as can be justified based on the sources we have thus far. TompaDompa (talk) 16:44, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Fair to add that. Again, though I think the criteria you are using are too narrow. MOS:POPCULT is a guideline, not an absolute rule that must be followed to the letter. It is even stated at the top of the page It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Sources discussing planets in binary star systems in general are sufficient. It may not meet the reliable source standard, but I will throw this out there as saying "Perhaps the most widely known is the planet Tattoine (sic) in Star Wars, baking famously under the heat of two stars." TornadoLGS (talk) 17:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you're suggesting at this point. Tatooine is now mentioned at the target with a link to its stand-alone article. Since Tatooine not being mentioned at the target was the only specific objection to redirecting, and that has been addressed, I'm planning to reinstate the redirect. Like I said, it's always possible to merge additional content from the page history after redirecting (though there is really nothing to merge—anything relevant would need new sources anyway). TompaDompa (talk) 15:26, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I was referring to keeping Tatooine on this page if it is cleaned up and not redirected. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:12, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I see. That is however a purely academic question since keeping this as a stand-alone article isn't really a reasonable course of action. TompaDompa (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2021 (UTC)