Talk:Extrasolar planets in fiction/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Compromise?

May I suggest a compromise? Split this article into two pieces. One piece, which will be the prose part that TompaDompa wants to create. I'll suggest that portion be written in Draft space, since it appears it will be weeks worth of work, and there is no reason to inflict a multi-week project upon mainspace. When enough of an article exists to make the transition to mainspace, it can be moved to mainspace under a different name, or perhaps an RFC used to replace an existing article (maybe this one, but as suggested below, this article might be a redirect).

The other piece could be the section currently titled List of planetary systems in fiction, placed into an article List of planetary systems in fiction, formatted as an actual list. I'd suggest this current article be renamed to said "list", to retain the edit history of all the additions. The format of the list article should be something like:

Stellar system	Planet number	Planet name	Work	Author or Originator	Description or notability	Reference
36 Ophiuchi B	-	Giedi Prime	Dune	Frank Herbert	Homeworld of House Harkonnen
36 Ophiuchi A	-	Arianrhod	Star Carrier: Deep Space	Ian Douglas	Proto-garden world with a research outpost.	-
40 (ο2) Eridani A	-	Vulcan	StarTrek (TOS)	Gene Roddenberry	Homeworld of Vulcan species
40 (ο2) Eridani A	4	Richese	Dune	Frank Herbert	One of two "supreme in machine culture" planets in the universe.
40 (ο2) Eridani	2	Montaña	2300 AD	Game Designers' Workshop	Joint Argentinian-Mexican colony	-
40 (ο2) Eridani A	-	Vulcan	Star Carrier: Deep Space	Ian Douglas	Joint German-Argentinian colony, invaded by anthropophages	-
40 (ο2) Eridani A	2	Erid	Project Hail Mary	Andy Weir	hot, fast-orbiting, massive rocky planet. Based on 40 Eridani Ab

...

References

The article in its current form exists as a way to keep star articles free of "In Popular Culture" sections, simply telling people who would be adding such to make their additions to star articles, to instead put their stuff in this article. That need hasn't gone away, but could still be served by a simple list. The current list does need to be trimmed, but closer to a cutting fingernails than the beheading we've seen. What would qualify for an entry? I'd suggest something like the following rules:

• The stellar system must exist and have an article in Wikipedia, and be linked. When a particular component of a multi-star system is provided, it can be specified after the wikilink (e.g., the A or B component does not have to be in the wikilink itself).
• The planet number (if described), should indicate the ordinal of the planet within the system. E.g., Earth would be described as Sol 3.
• The planet must be notable in the work; either POV action takes place on it, or detailed description is provided from afar. Implicitly, it must be named.
• Either the author or source work must have a Wikipedia article. This would be an application of WP:WTAF.
• The description column should have a brief description of the planet.
• The references column should be only reference numbers, and thus column kept narrow. Note, entries without references will probably be deleted.

That set of rules is ad-hoc pulled out of thin air, could easily be argued separately. Does this appeal to anyone? Tarl N. (discuss) 22:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

If we stick with the first point as a criterion for inclusion, I suggest the title should be list of fictional planetary systems around real stars or something like that since a title like List of planetary systems in fiction would imply the inclusion of entirely fictional systems. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, although at some point qualifiers in the title become excessive. E.g., take a look at List of coffeehouse chains, which is qualified by a variety of rules not specified in the name. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 22:31, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@TornadoLGS: How about List of fictional planets with astronomical locations ? Tarl N. (discuss) 05:42, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not too particular. I just think it should be clear the title of the list is in reference to planets place in some kind of real system rather than a purely fictional ones. TornadoLGS (talk) 06:09, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I like the idea of a split with the "list of..." title having the entries list. Given that this article is the one that carries the edit history of the list, we should probably rename this article "list of..." and either repurpose planets in science fiction or create a new article for the prose part that TompaDompa wants to create. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 02:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

This suggestion would create a new list and place it at a different title. Regardless of the merits of creating such a list, that's no reason to keep the current version at the current title. The prose version I've written is already ready for mainspace (much more so than the current version of the article, at any rate), even if it could use expansion. I would therefore propose restoring the prose version while discussion about creating List of planetary systems in fiction continues. I don't find the edit history argument particularly compelling, for several reasons: you're suggesting an entirely new list which would not necessarily need the edit history of this one (unless you're planning to reuse the editor-created descriptions, in which case I'm not sure what the benefit of this proposed list is supposed to be), we have a number of templates such as Template:Merged-from to use if the edit history needs to be retained, and the prose version I've written also has its edit history at this title.

As for the merits of creating such a list, I wonder if you're taking the long way around to deletion, so to speak. Piotrus pointed out WP:Articles for deletion/Fomalhaut in fiction as a precedent, and I would add to that WP:Articles for deletion/Tonfa in popular culture; wanting to keep other articles free from pop culture content is not generally an accepted reason to have lists like this—the solution is to instead remove the offending content outright if and when it is added to the articles one wants to keep "clean" (see also the essay WP:CARGO). TompaDompa (talk) 10:19, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@TompaDompa: No. It's clear you do not now, nor have you ever had, consensus on this talk page for your wholesale deletions. We've had roughly 80K worth of discussion with no resolution over the weeks you've been at this. I have n o patience for more walls of text. There are a variety of resolution mechanisms, most of them inappropriate by now - I think WP:3O would turn down the case outright. Probably the only remaining mechanism would be a full-blown RFC, which could be very simple. Tarl N. (discuss) 22:37, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Which of the two following versions of the page should be kept:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stars_and_planetary_systems_in_fiction&oldid=1060347295 (yours), or
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stars_and_planetary_systems_in_fiction&oldid=1060604346 (original)

If you don't think your current article is an appropriate comparison, fine, then write the article you want in draft space, and come back to an RFC when you have an article you think is an appropriate comparison. Tarl N. (discuss) 22:37, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

If you want to start a WP:Request for comment, I don't think it's necessary to expand upon my version beforehand. TompaDompa (talk) 23:09, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

My few cents: first, I don't see why star articles can't have 'in popular culture' sections. Such sections are relevant - as long as they are well written and not just fancruft listings of "all works in which this star is mentioned". Such listings don't belong there - nor do they belong merged together into one list.

Second, I also note that the table above mentions Star Carrier series. I read it, I enjoyed it, I don't think it is notable - so if it doesn't merit its own article, I doubt that any mention that 'star X' appears in it belongs on Wikipedia at all. As for stuff like 36 Ophiuchi being the "Homeworld of House Harkonnen" - well, assuming there is a RS that states so outside the book, I think this can be mentioned in the article on the star, section 'in popular culture'. I still see zero need for ORish list discussed here in question, that goes, star by star, and discusses all mentions. It's kind of cool - but it does not belong on Wikipedia. I am sure there's a sf or astronomy wikia somewhere that could host it. Worst case, move it to Wikibooks?

Third, regarding your inclusion criteria, I take an issue with "The planet must be notable in the work; either POV action takes place on it, or detailed description is provided from afar. Implicitly, it must be named. & Either the author or source work must have a Wikipedia article. This would be an application of WP:WTAF." It allows mentioning places that have only a few paragraphs of text or come from a fanzine forgotten story of a notable author. There are probably entire atlases of stuff from Star Wars, Star Trek or WH40K that would all qualify for mentions here. Way too inclusive. Nope, sorry, that's fancruft, no encyclopedia.

PS.Fun fact: some of my first Wikipedia entries from almost 20 years ago were creating long-deleted entries on star systems from the Honorverse universe. Good riddance (and many were copied to Honor Harrington wikia where they can exist peacefully). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:39, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• At this stage, it would probably be a good idea to send this to AfD. The chances of the article not being kept, or kept on the condition of a complete rewrite, are very good, taking recent cases into account. There would then be no more of these armchair judgements on consensus. Avilich (talk) 01:33, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:POINT much? Tarl N. (discuss) 04:07, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

The only 'point' here is that a final consensus can be reached more easily through AfD, with its deadlines and standards. This isn't "disrupting wikipedia to prove a point", it's a valid procedure when faced with the failure of solving a dispute that concerns large-scale content removal. Of course, during or after an AfD one can't just impose one's own interpretation of consensus and at the same time not even troubling to participate, as at least 3 editors have done here (and I'm not even referring to you). The result will be final, which is more than has been or can be accomplished here in this talk page. Avilich (talk) 04:28, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Your description doesn't sound like an achieved consensus. With 80k (at last check) of back-and-forth on this, I'd say lack of consensus is pretty clear. I left originally because I didn't like the level of incivility that had developed in the discussion. I came back because it had escalated to edit warring. I know others have abandoned the discussion because arguing here seems a time sink without an outcome - TompaDompa knows what they are going to do (I assume) and has not demonstrated any interest in accepting feedback. It all gets wiped to be replaced with something, eventually.

Above I suggested an RFC as a means of resolving the WP:BRD stage, since the current audience is clearly not getting anywhere with the arguing. Suggesting AFD instead smells POINTy. I'm not sure what's behind the "all this stuff has to get wiped!!!!!!". I agree that there is crud and fancruft, which can be trimmed (e.g., above mentioned Star Carrier example) - but what happened was a simple total wipe, even of entries which were well cited. So I think an RFC is in order if anyone wants to move forward on this. Tarl N. (discuss) 05:21, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

It wasn't a total wipe—as a counterexample see the Psi Cassiopeiae section, though I did copyedit it—but you'd be surprised at how many of the entries that may have seemed well cited turned out not to be when held up to scrutiny. Part of the point of making a large number of discrete edits cleaning the article up was that anybody who disagreed with any specific edit (either because they think I made a mistake or because they have found a source not cited) could undo that edit without having to undo them all. Was there any particular example you had in mind? TompaDompa (talk) 10:42, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Making small edits is best practices, particularly where they are accompanied by edit summaries. I am also curious - what is the most controversial, most problematic content removed by TD that Tarl or anyone else have taken an issue with? Per BRD, we can totally review and discuss things here, but just saying "the big list was better because it was big" (or as I see, it "cool") is not particularly helpful. See also WP:ITSUSEFUL to which WP:ITSCOOL I just created redirects now :) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:04, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Tarl is right to question proposing an AfD when it's clear you don't actually want the article deleted. Using AfD just to garner a wider community input is in poor form. It may not be intentionally disruptive, but it is not a valid procedure when faced with the failure of solving a dispute. What you should be considering when desiring wider community input is an RfC.

Also, just to reiterate (since it may have gotten buried in the walls of text), the last time I checked there had been zero effort on the part of TompaDompa to attempt to find corroborating sources for the entries that were removed. That's their right, I suppose, but the choices aren't between TompaDompa's (nearly) complete prose rewrite and a version of the list lacking proper citations. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 14:27, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Dozens of these X in pop culture articles have gone through AfD already, one extra will be nothing out of the ordinary. A full restructuring is more or less equivalent to a full deletion, and there is precedent for deleting if attempts to fix the article through the normal editorial process fail. AfD is simply more efficient and more likely to attract external input more quickly. Avilich (talk) 14:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Than an RFC? Sorry, that is laughably incorrect. The rest of what you've just said is pretty goofball analysis, but that last part really takes the cake. AfD shouldn't take the role of RFCs when we have RFCs at our disposal. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 14:55, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

So far, it's been through AfDs that 'X on fiction' articles have received attention.Of course, one only has to actually send the article that way and any discussion on which venue is more appropriate will become useless :) I'll leave to TD the final decision though. Avilich (talk) 15:21, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

AfD has displayed clear consensus for rewriting fancrufty unreferenced lists into analytical prose, to match the content and style of academic encyclopedias of fiction. If the discussion here is stalled because some people like the lists, AfD is the next step, per WP:TNT. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:06, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

The fact that I have actually looked for—and found—MOS:POPCULT-compliant sources to use for examples notwithstanding, what would you say the other choice is if it's not the current version? The way I see it, the editors who favour the ~300 kB version of the article have had weeks to look for sources themselves and thus far produced none. TompaDompa (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

That's not really a fair point. You have made indications that you would oppose a list, even if it were properly sourced, making it seem like searching for verification might be a waste of time unless we get consensus for it. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 19:45, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

That's a rather silly line of argument. You say that we shouldn't choose between my version and the current version, but between my version and some hypothetical version nobody has seen, and yet you think it would be a waste of time to actually construct the latter until there is consensus that that version is the one we should use. How are we supposed to make an informed decision about which version to use if we don't even remotely know what your version would look like? Not to mention, my version contained a fair amount of examples in prose form. The formatting should not make a difference, since anything that actually is properly sourced would belong in either version. TompaDompa (talk) 20:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

No, it's not a silly line of argument. If you can't imagine what it looks like to have a list of entries with adequate citations, that's an abysmal lack of imagination on your part. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 21:51, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

You have provided no evidence that any single entry can be adequately sourced in the first place. You said earlier that you wouldn't be surprised if efforts to corroborate would still trim the original list by half. I wouldn't be surprised if it would trim the original list far more. Whether the end result would be 30 entries or 300 is a rather pertinent question here. TompaDompa (talk) 23:49, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that is the pertinent question at all; the discussion (per WP:BRD), is whether you have persuaded editors that your change is an improvement on the article. Tarl N. (discuss) 00:04, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I know you think that, because your suggestion was choosing between my version and the current version. But Aeusoes1's suggestion was choosing between my version and a trimmed version of the current one, making the question of what that trimmed version would look like a pertinent one. TompaDompa (talk) 00:16, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

That would be a decision made after the decision on whether to accept your current version, which is the question currently before us. There are many things that could be done to improve the article, but at this point, you have forced us into choosing between what you have done and the previous version. Once that choice is made, we can look at making improvements. Although this could be construed as NPA, I'd hope you won't be part of any subsequent effort, since my good faith in your edits has been eroded. Tarl N. (discuss) 00:31, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

No, I haven't forced you to do anything. You could at any time have edited my version in any way you had seen fit. TompaDompa (talk) 00:46, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we should think of this as between two specific versions. Something at issue in this discussion is whether we should be open to a list, whether long or short, even being permitted at all. As I have put forth in point (1) in the above section, I think it should be. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 14:25, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I see. I misunderstood you, then. With that in mind: whether or not to have a list is more of a format issue, and I think the format should be decided based on the content rather than the other way round. TompaDompa (talk) 18:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok - I misunderstood. I had thought you had flat refused the compromise. If that's still on the table, the question is which of the two articles gets the article history. I'd suggest that since your version has essentially zero text from the original article, it doesn't need the previous article history. The list, which comprises roughly 99% of the previous article, has had nearly 4000 edits in the past 15 years, probably should be considered the logical successor to the list. Most of those edits were to the list that you are so determined to eliminate. Tarl N. (discuss) 23:54, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I may have misunderstood your initial proposal, but wasn't it to create an entirely new list—or more accurately a table, the beginning of which you've placed at the top of this section—with a set of criteria TBD (you've made a preliminary suggestion above), and placing it at the new title List of planetary systems in fiction? I don't think such a table would necessarily need the edit history from the current title. I think the case for keeping the edit history for my version continuous is stronger since 100% of the edit history for my version is at this title whereas your proposed version is content that does not yet really exist (apart from the first few rows above, if you're planning on using those versions thereof), if I understand you correctly. TompaDompa (talk) 00:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

you could simply move this page to some 'List of ...' title (as with the recent 'appearances of the Moon in fiction') and paste your changes on the leftover redirect, or perhaps create a new page altogether. This would solve the problem of your content additions having to exist alongside the fancruft list, and allow the list's MOS:POPCULT problem to be discussed on a separate occasion later. This should also dispose of the need for a RfC, unless the current title ends up being claimed by both parties. Avilich (talk) 02:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

What was done with List of appearances of the Moon in fiction is that Moon in fiction was rewritten from scratch in prose form and then some time later the other page was created from an old version of Moon in fiction (see initial revision of List of appearances of the Moon in fiction). That's more in line with what I'm suggesting: restore the prose version at this title and if a new list is to be constructed, do so at list of planetary systems in fiction (or draftspace). TompaDompa (talk) 06:10, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I mentioned moving the page because it makes sense that the edit history of the list be located under the same page as the list, and not under your reworked article. That's what presumably was meant by the term 'successor' above. Avilich (talk) 15:23, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I understand the argument that the current version is a list and the proposed version would also be one (technically a table), but I'm not persuaded by it. Unless I have misunderstood the suggestion completely, the two would not meaningfully be the same. The edit history for the proposed version does not yet exist, as that one would be constructed from scratch with criteria TBD and from sources yet to be located. On the other hand, the edit history for my version does already exist, and it's at the current title. TompaDompa (talk) 16:23, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

The list article might come to be formatted in a dramatically different fashion, but the reworked list would still draw heavily from what has been added here. Titles aside, this has already been a de facto "list of..." article for quite some time. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 16:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Format aside, an entirely new set of criteria and an entirely new way of writing entries make for an entirely new list. TompaDompa (talk) 17:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I made no suggestion for the list itself – only that both the current list (not a hypothetical one) and the edit history be moved to a new article titled (say) 'List of fictional appearances of stars and planetary systems'. The page 'Stars and planetary systems' would then be just a redirect, on which you could paste your changes. Avilich (talk) 18:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

That would separate the prose version from its edit history, which is my objection. It would also split the page without addressing the issues with the current version, which does not seem like a good idea. TompaDompa (talk) 18:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

The edit history is there for attribution: you're (for the moment) the sole author of the prose, and so the attribution won't change if you yourself do a simple copy-paste move. I don't claim this will solve the problems with the current version, only that, by splitting, you'll avoid altogether the need to figure out how to fit the prose and the list together, as part of this hypothetical compromise. The list and its problems will still be there, only in another page where they can now be discussed separately. This requires, however, that you consent to detaching your own prose from the edit history of the list. If that's indeed what you're telling me you don't like, I don't know why that's a problem. Avilich (talk) 20:29, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You're talking about the prose version that you wrote, right? That is not a significant edit history. The issues with the current (list) version are adequate citations and identifying a concrete criteria for inclusion. That is something that we can (and should) address independently of the split. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 20:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm actually not the sole author of the prose. I wrote almost all of it, but not quite.

The issues with the current (list) version are adequate citations and identifying a concrete criteria for inclusion. Those are neither the only issues nor trivial (or even easy) to fix. I was under the impression that the idea was to create a fundamentally different list (though the entries would overlap with the current version). A fundamentally different list would not need the edit history from the current version (just like if list of largest empires had been created today, it would not need the edit history from list of empires even though the entries overlap significantly). This makes it sound like that's not what you're suggesting? TompaDompa (talk) 23:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

We can add that question to the RfC, then, and let the community decide whether to prioritize a couple days' worth of edits from a single author or several years' worth of edits involving dozens of editors. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 02:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

The point of attaching edit history to an article is to be able to match specific text to particular edits, to determine the circumstances upon which it was added. Given TompaDompa's version has no textual commonality with the edit history, there's no point in associating the two. Tarl N. (discuss) 04:31, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

It's starting to sound like you're not planning to create a fundamentally different list at all, but rather tweak the current version. That's a problem inasmuch as it would not solve the fundamental issues with the current version. TompaDompa (talk) 07:18, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

What are the fundamental issues that wouldn't be solved by trimming and sourcing the current list? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 14:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

It's beginning to sound like the goal isn't so much creating a good article, as much as it is to ensure the destruction of the current article. I suggested stripping out the list to another article in the hopes that would give TompaDompa the freedom to do what he wanted with an article, and not feel the need to destroy the moved list. I'm volunteering to make the conversion per the example above, and doing some pruning, but I'm not willing to go through the effort of converting and formatting 600-odd items only to have Tompa Dompa delete 595 of them as soon as the article is created. How do we move forward from here? Tarl N. (discuss) 20:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

@Aeusoes1: Plagiarism and being a TV Tropes article of the kind that has been repeatedly rejected at AfD, off the top of my head.

@Tarl N.: The goal is both to create a good article and to not have a TV Tropes article of the kind that has been repeatedly rejected at AfD. I thought you were proposing to create a fundamentally different list from scratch, but since that wouldn't be accomplished by converting and formatting the current entries, that seems to have been a misunderstanding on my part. As for how to move forward from here, I don't really know. The current version is definitely AfD material, and that would still be the case for the list part if we split the article in two as suggested without fixing the fundamental issues. TompaDompa (talk) 20:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't trimming the list according to a selection criteria (e.g. that proposed by Tarl) address the issue of it being an indiscriminate list? This is the first I've heard of any plagiarism/copyvio problems.

Given that we are all in agreement that verification and selection criteria are an appropriate step, I think the best way going forward is to fix the article in those regards and not worry whether TompaDompa will approve of the final version. They don't have unilateral power to destroy the article, and if they have a problem with a well-sourced list with clear selection criteria, they will need to do a better job than they have done in articulating those concerns. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 22:37, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Removing some entries would not fix the issue that the rest of them are TV Tropes entries, and the specific selection criteria proposed above would as Piotrus pointed out still be very inclusive. However, discussion otherwise on Wikipedia has already resulted in a method to keep lists about fiction from being WP:INDISCRIMINATE some time ago: following MOS:POPCULT. As for plagiarism, you can for instance compare our description of Arrakis here with the description found at The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction. TompaDompa (talk) 22:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

The intent is to take all the descriptions and paraphrase them down to a short phrase. That should remove any concerns about copyvio. Tarl N. (discuss) 00:00, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

To trim the list, we need to review what criteria other reliable sources are using when creating their equivalent lists. I am open to hearing what criteria they are using, and then we can make something similar. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:20, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd earlier suggested a set of rules, and indicated it should be debated. It's far enough back that it's worth repeating (with a slightly modified description rule).

• The stellar system must exist and have an article in Wikipedia, and be linked. When a particular component of a multi-star system is provided, it can be specified after the wikilink (e.g., the A or B component does not have to be in the wikilink itself).
• The planet number (if described), should indicate the ordinal of the planet within the system. E.g., Earth would be described as Sol 3.
• The planet must be notable in the work; either POV action takes place on it, or detailed description is provided from afar. E.g., in Star Trek, the planet Vulcan is notable. Implicitly, the planet must be named.
• Either the author or source work must have a Wikipedia article. This would be an application of WP:WTAF.
• The description column should have a brief description of the planet and/or why it is notable.
• The references column should be only reference numbers, and thus column kept narrow. Note, entries without references will probably be deleted.

I'll note the emphasis is on shortening the cruft, not on deleting entries. Entries without citations may be deleted, but we are not in a competition to see how many entries we can get rid of. I strongly disagree with the application of MOS:POPCULT to a list article dedicated to indexing use of fictional settings. Tarl N. (discuss) 01:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Two questions: What kind of sourcing would be used, if not that which is prescribed by MOS:POPCULT? And how well does this match the criteria other reliable sources are using when creating their equivalent lists (as per Piotrus)? TompaDompa (talk) 05:35, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Sourcing, as per ordinary citations. Published work, readily available, authoritative in its field. Since this is explicitly a list of fictional places, I expect in some cases to cite the fictional work itself (Is that so out of question? In describing a family tree of Hamlet characters, wouldn't the authoritative source be Hamlet itself?).

For example, Gargantua is described in novels by Robert Forward as a planet around Barnard's star. One novel with a long voyage to Barnard's star, another novel takes place in that system. The location of the planet is critical to the plotlines of the novels, but not critical to anything outside the novels, so is not likely to be cited elsewhere.

I can't answer about Piotrus' question, since I don't know what criteria he might be referring to. Is he asking me to make a comprehensive list of all lists on Wikipedia and evaluate the standards for inclusion on each list? Tarl N. (discuss) 06:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Addendum - one frequent rule that seems to be in place for lists on Wikipedia is WP:WTAF. If the item does not reference an existing article in Wikipedia, the presumption is that the item is not notable. That's one way lists are kept down in size. Tarl N. (discuss) 06:39, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I meant, what reliable sources - newspapers, books, etc. - have tried to present a "list of stars and planets in fiction", and what criteria did they used? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if there is a "list of stars and planets in fiction" outside of Wikipedia. When I referred to other lists, I referred to things like List of organisms by chromosome count and List of coffeehouse chains, which I also believe do not have published lists outside of Wikipedia. In both lists, the dominant filter has been WP:WTAF. Tarl N. (discuss) 08:50, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Addendum: Both those lists have effectively no content. They serve as indexes for material in Wikipedia, which is largely the use I believe this article has. Tarl N. (discuss) 08:52, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

This, at the very list, suggests we need to split the list of stars and planetary systems in fiction from stars and planetary systems in fiction. The latter should become a proper, prose-based analysis, as similar entries exist in reliable, expert-written encyclopedias of fiction. Although I am not sure if this shouldn't become a disambig into stars in fiction and planets in fiction, two separate topics... (note that the first one redirects here while the second, to Solar system in fiction, which I think is wrong, as obviously - Vulcan etc. - the scope of the topic is bigger). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:19, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

It is not satisfactory that Planets in fiction is a redirect since there are a bunch of different articles one could conceivably look for using that title, but we can work out exactly how to address that later when we've settled on how to fix this article. I'm unsure about turning this into a navigational page for the separate topics of planets in fiction and stars in fiction. I can see arguments for either approach, and I think we might be better off postponing that decision for now.

It seems rather silly to suggest that there are no corresponding lists for List of organisms by chromosome count outside of Wikipedia when the article itself directly links to An atlas of the chromosome numbers in animals. I also think the argument that it doesn't have any content rather silly—it provides information about the chromosome number of various organisms.

The location of the planet is critical to the plotlines of the novels, but not critical to anything outside the novels, so is not likely to be cited elsewhere. Another way of putting that would be that the location of the planet is not a notable aspect of it. This is more or less the point MOS:POPCULT makes: examples shouldn't be included just because they exist, they should be discussed in secondary or tertiary sources if they are to be included.

Surely if the idea is to WP:Write the article first, the article that needs to be written first is the article about the planet. TompaDompa (talk) 12:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I presented my concerns about wording of some of your proposl below, I don't believe this has been addressed. There are many notable planets in Star Trek universe that are not notable outside it and belong on Memory Alpha but not on Wikipedia. I'd be fine with limiting the list only to planets that are notable enough for a stand-alone article. How about that? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:41, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I don’t believe there are ‘’any’’ standalone articles about planets which are featured in fiction. So that would take the list down to ‘’zero’’ entries. Tarl N. (discuss) 08:46, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Errr. Earth in fiction. Mars in fiction. Venus in fiction. Saturn in fiction. Tatooine. Vulcan (Star Trek) (although that one is mostly about the species rather than the planet, IIRC we merged most such topics in the ST-verse due to GNG issues). All the other entries in Category:Fictional planets. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe any of those would qualify for this list. It's explicitly planets outside this solar system, and all the ones in the category you mention seem to be either planets with no identifiable location, or redirects to something that isn't a planet. If there are any that would qualify, it's probably even fewer than TompaDompa included in his revised article. Tarl N. (discuss) 00:26, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Since the Star Wars franchise is set in a different galaxy (far, far away), all those planets such as Tatooine, Hoth, Naboo, Mustafar, and Jakku are outside of our Solar System. Arrakis, which I linked to above, is according to its article the third planet orbiting the star Canopus. Mesklin is according to its article located in the 61 Cygni system. The only fictional planets that aren't located outside of the Solar System are the Fictional planets of the Solar System. TompaDompa (talk) 12:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)