Jump to content

Talk:Stars in fiction

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article listing examples?

[edit]

Not that many months ago, there was still a long, large article on Wikipedia listing various stars and the fictional works they have appeared in - written, film, games. Not only can I not find this article, I am beginning to suspect it has been deleted as if unworthy of being a Wikipedia article. GBC (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I gather you are thinking of the article called Stars and planetary systems in fiction (archived at the Wayback Machine), which was recently brought to WP:AfD in mid-April (see WP:Articles for deletion/Stars and planetary systems in fiction). The outcome of that discussion (and some further talk page discussion) was that the article was reworked from scratch and split into two separate articles: Extrasolar planets in fiction and Stars in fiction. TompaDompa (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Multistars

[edit]

I am wondering how we can squeeze here fiction set in binary star and other multiple star systems without falling into original research. - Altenmann >talk 23:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have to—that's covered at Extrasolar planets in fiction#In multiple star systems as sources mostly focus on the planets in those systems rather than the stars themselves. TompaDompa (talk) 23:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
{ec} P.S. I see something of it is in Extrasolar_planets_in_fiction#In_multiple_star_systems. Can this be at least cross-wikilinked here, with a couple of words, since these are kinda special type of stars? - Altenmann >talk 23:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. I'm working on and expanding this article in preparation for WP:Good article nomination, and I'll see where I can find a place for it. TompaDompa (talk) 23:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Life in stars

[edit]

I accidentally run into "Hypothetical life forms inside stars". Surely there must be some fiction for this. - Altenmann >talk 21:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. you have it in section "Neutron stars" (although it is about life on stars), but IMO "Life in/on stars" is a notable subject in itself. - Altenmann >talk 21:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PPS. I am wondering whether Forward's is a rip-off of Mission of Gravity (1953). - Altenmann >talk 21:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The World at the End of Time "Unknown to both the humans of Earth and the colonists, the stars around them are home to immensely long-lived (effectively immortal) plasma creatures—"

Sources on the topic, somewhat surprisingly, barely cover this angle. Stars themselves being alive (in some sense of the word) gets a lot more attention. Nevertheless, I managed to work in a brief mention. TompaDompa (talk) 22:16, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revert of life in stars

[edit]

The dispute is over this.

In this revert you also removed my other edits, but this is a minor issue.

Life in stars was mentioned in two places, so I collected into one place. I would not call life a minor trivia and I think it deserves an individual attention in the article. - Altenmann >talk 16:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the sources? As noted above, Sources on the topic, somewhat surprisingly, barely cover this angle. The mention of Clement's "Proof" was more-or-less shoehorned in—it would make much more sense to remove that than it does to combine it with the neutron star stuff (which reflects a WP:Summary style approach to Neutron stars in fiction) if we are going by the sources, which we have to do in order to abide by WP:PROPORTION.
As for your other edits, they involve improper "See also" templates and an unsourced Doctor Who example. Do you understand why those were removed? TompaDompa (talk) 16:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you have expanded the "Life in and on stars" section you created further. I am going to revert this too, but first I will explain why.
The other sections of this article are based on sources on the overarching topic of the article: Stars in fiction. These sources include the "Stars" entry in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, the "Star" entry in Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia, the "Stars" entry in Science Fiction Literature through History: An Encyclopedia, and the "Stars" entry in The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy. The same applies to the article's three sub-articles: Supernovae in fiction, Neutron stars in fiction, and Black holes in fiction (though there the sources used as the foundation are on those specific topics, e.g. the "Neutron Stars" entry in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and so on). This is not, however, true of the section you created—it is based on WP:Primary sources (i.e. the works of fiction themselves) and sources about those primary sources. I am sure you'll agree that a book review of The World at the End of Time, unlike the "Stars" entry in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, is not a source on the overarching topic of Stars in fiction. This is a problem, because Wikipedia's WP:Core content policy of WP:NPOV mandates that articles reflect the sources on the topic of the article in terms of the balance given to different WP:ASPECTS: An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject.
Now if we look at the relative weight given to fictional portrayals of life in and on "ordinary" stars in the relevant sources, we find it to be treated as a very minor aspect indeed. Sources on neutron stars, and sources that discuss neutron stars alongside other types of stars, on the other hand discuss life in and on neutron stars a fair amount—hence why there is a "Life" section in the Neutron stars in fiction article, and why the "Neutron stars" section of this article (which is a WP:Summary style version of that article, albeit weighted to better reflect the sources on this topic rather than that one) mentioned life in and on neutron stars until you restructured the article.
What you have done, relying on WP:Primary sources and sources about those primary sources rather than sources on the overarching topic, has been tried and rejected before. See WP:Articles for deletion/Stars and planetary systems in fiction, the outcome of which was to replace the entirety of the contents of that article—which used to rely on the wrong kinds of sources as described above—with contents properly based on sources on the overarching topic (and then further talk page discussion led to the article being split in two—Extrasolar planets in fiction and Stars in fiction—to better reflect the sources in terms of delineation of scope). Clearly, we should not be moving backwards to an approach that has already been soundly rejected. Instead, we should be using the approach that has a proven track record of working, producing no fewer than three WP:Featured articles on similar topics (Mars in fiction, Venus in fiction, and Sun in fiction) and several additional WP:Good articles.
You were reverted for a valid reason the first time, even if I gather that you did not at the time see why that was so. I now ask that you, instead of reinstating your edits yet again and turning this into an WP:Edit war, do what you should per WP:BRD have done the previous time and try to understand why your changes have been reverted and discuss those reasons here on the talk page. TompaDompa (talk) 21:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I disagree with your approach. I used valid secondary sources for references. I disagree that you have to cherry-pick secondary sources for whatever criteria you fancy. I was using reliable secondary sources specifically discussing the subtopic of this article, namely "life in/on stars". - Altenmann >talk 21:57, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, you categorically were not—you were using sources about specific works (where you were using sources at all). Do you not see the difference between a source about a book mentioning an aspect of that book and a source about a concept's treatment in fiction? TompaDompa (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I see the difference but I fail to see any Wikipedia rules that preventing me from using them. If a source about a book describes (I mean critically describes, not just summarizes) "an aspect of that book" which is a subtopic of this article, then it is a valid refence. - Altenmann >talk 22:11, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you read and understand WP:PROPORTION—only sources on the subject establish due weight. You can use other sources in addition as complements, but you need the sources on the subject nonetheless. I'm sure you understand this when it comes to WP:Reliability—WP:Context matters. I'm also sure you understand that we as Wikipedia editors are not supposed to engage in media analysis ourselves but leave it to the sources. On that note, who decides what's a relevant or for that matter important subtopic of the article? The only correct answer is "sources on the overarching topic, as per WP:PROPORTION". I have read the sources here and offered my reading of them in terms of the relative weight of this aspect. Where does your assessment that it deserves an individual attention in the article come from? TompaDompa (talk) 22:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how it violates WP:PROPORTION: the section size is small, fairly in proportion with its coverage in the reliable sources. who decides what's a relevant" - sorry, I disagree with your answer. I am afraid your uncompromising approach to filtering of article content is a hint at your WP:OWNersip attitude. - Altenmann >talk 22:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is it in proportion with its coverage in the reliable sources? What sources did you base that on? Your version was a separate section with three paragraphs, or two if you discount the one about life in/on neutron stars that was moved from the "Neutron stars" section. That's way more relative weight than the sources on the overarching topic—the ones we are supposed to reflect in terms of balance of WP:ASPECTS—give this aspect.
No, my approach is not a hint of WP:OWNership. It's because I know what I'm talking about when it comes to articles like this. Those three WP:Featured articles on similar topics that I mentioned above were all written by me (in the case of Venus in fiction, in collaboration with Piotrus). In this case, I took the article Stars and planetary systems in fiction and rewrote it from scratch, as a result of the AfD firmly rejecting the version that existed previously, into this article and Extrasolar planets in fiction. I have read the sources here. I understand the sources here. I have a sense of the relative weight given to different aspects by the sources here. I nominated this article for WP:Good article status. Call it WP:STEWARDSHIP, if you like. You added unsourced material (the Doctor Who stuff) and restructured the article without, it appears to me, fully understanding why it was the way it was before you started editing it. Doing so and then reinstating your edits after they had been reverted with a clearly-outlined reason for the reversion during an open WP:Good article nomination seemed rather disruptive to me. TompaDompa (talk) 22:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Colleague, please tone down on vanity: WP:OWN, items 3,4,6. - Altenmann >talk 23:36, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • You'll notice I waited to bring this up. I intentionally refrained from referring to my other efforts initially, but at this point I think it has become necessary to establish my credentials, so to speak.
      I think we can agree that writing Wikipedia articles is in some sense a trainable skill. I also think we can agree that writing different types of Wikipedia articles (say, biographical articles, mathematics articles, or articles on music albums) is to some extent different trainable skills. Writing X in fiction articles is a skill that I happen to have honed over a fair amount of time, and the proof is in the pudding—my best efforts are recognized as being of high quality. My approach to writing articles on these kinds of articles works, demonstrably, inasmuch as it produces quality content—as judged by our formal quality assessment process at WP:FAC.
      This is all to say that when I talk about what approach ought to be taken when writing X in fiction articles, I know what I'm talking about, and my track record shows as much. I'm sure your intentions are good, but if you do not have much experience writing articles like this and seeing them through quality control processes such as WP:GAN and WP:FAC, maybe consider that editors who do might be on to something when they tell you that your efforts are misguided.
      None of WP:OWN points 3 (An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental. This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version. or "I'm an expert on the subject. If you have any suggestions, please put them in the talk page and I will review them.", depending on which of the two lists you are referring to), 4 (An editor reverts a good-faith change without providing an edit summary that refers to relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, previous reviews and discussions, reliable sources, or specific grammar or prose problems introduced by the edit. Repeating such no-reason reversions after being asked for a rationale is a strong indicator of ownership behavior. or "Please do not make any more changes without my/their/our approval."), or 6 (An editor reverts any edit with a personal attack in the edit summary. or "I can see nothing wrong with the article and there is no need to change anything at all." (misapplying WP:AINTBROKE)) apply, and you know it. I have clearly outlined why your edits were a net negative to the article, backed it up with relevant WP:Policies and guidelines, and asked you not to reinstate edits that have been reverted for valid reasons but rather discuss as per WP:BRD (which you have indeed abided by since, so kudos). TompaDompa (talk) 00:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • or two if you discount the one about life in/on neutron stars -- false. There were two pieces about life in your article, and my first version you reverted as well was merely consolidation is a separate subsection, since I find this subtopic notable. - Altenmann >talk 23:36, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can explain again why those items were where they were (and that one of them was included more-or-less at your request, despite being dubious in terms of WP:PROPORTION), but more importantly: that you find this subtopic notable is of absolutely no consequence, just as it is of no consequence whether I do. What matters is what sources on the topic think is important. I am certain that you would not advance this argument about a WP:BLP article, that we should include the things we as editors think are important in the proportion we find them to be important instead of reflecting the importance placed upon them by the sources on the topic. So again I must ask you: how can you possibly think that dedicating an entire subsection to this WP:ASPECT (keeping in mind that doing so gives it more prominent placement compared to appearing in running text and Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery.), and expanding it as you did (even if you brush over that part above), accurately reflects the importance given to it by the overall literature on the topic? For that matter, how can you justify adding unsourced material about Doctor Who in a different section? TompaDompa (talk) 00:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, let's cut to the chase: the fact (1) that you added unsourced Doctor Who content and the fact (2) that you have repeatedly made statements such as IMO "Life in/on stars" is a notable subject in itself (given that you had already mentioned Hypothetical life forms inside stars, I gather this refers to Life in/on stars in fiction, specifically), I would not call life a minor trivia and I think it deserves an individual attention in the article., and I find this subtopic notable, together suggest very strongly that you are not in fact basing your position on an assessment of the literature, but rather your own personal judgment. We're not going to get anywhere with this unless you start backing up your position with proper sources—and who knows, if you do so we may very well reach some kind of agreement. TompaDompa (talk) 00:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do base my position on assessment of literature and yes, surprize(!) wikipedians make their own personal judgement every time they add a piece of info into an article. And yes, we are not going anywhere if you continue to weigh your own judgement above mine. That's why I requested WP:3RD. - Altenmann >talk 00:26, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What literature, then? Would it be the same that I base my position on—mainly the "Stars" entry in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, the "Star" entry in Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia, the "Stars" entry in Science Fiction Literature through History: An Encyclopedia, and the "Stars" entry in The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy—or something different? And how did that result in the inclusion of Doctor Who? TompaDompa (talk) 00:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My literature is in my refs cited. And now you are nit-picking, colleague. I can do without dr.Who. - Altenmann >talk 01:14, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Am I understanding you correctly that the literature you assessed consisted of https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/599712.The_World_at_the_End_of_Time, https://www.benespen.com/2015-1-1-the-world-at-the-end-of-time-book-review/, https://books.google.com/books?id=OfCVCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA166, and https://books.google.com/books?id=nzmIPZg5xicC&pg=PA268? And I don't think asking where you got Doctor Who from is nit-picking—you decided to add it, without adding any source. What did you base that inclusion upon? TompaDompa (talk) 01:26, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is nitpicking a single sentence from section. YOu could have deleted it and I would not object. I don't care about it, although I am pretty sure I can find a ref because it is a major item of the plot. I am done bickering with you; your position is pretty much clear to me. Let us see what 3RD opinion say. - Altenmann >talk 01:30, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to take that as an admission that you did not, in fact, get it from any source whatsoever but rather your personal feeling that it belonged. To me, that undermines your credibility quite a lot when it comes to your earlier assertion I do base my position on assessment of literature as well as the implication in the section size is small, fairly in proportion with its coverage in the reliable sources that you had at that point made a serious assessment of WP:PROPORTION. My other question remains unanswered: am I understanding you correctly that the literature you assessed consisted of https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/599712.The_World_at_the_End_of_Time, https://www.benespen.com/2015-1-1-the-world-at-the-end-of-time-book-review/, https://books.google.com/books?id=OfCVCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA166, and https://books.google.com/books?id=nzmIPZg5xicC&pg=PA268? TompaDompa (talk) 01:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a request at WP:3RD. The dispute is over this.- Altenmann >talk

Response to third opinion request (The relevance of the "Life in/on stars" section):
Hello. I am basing my analysis of Altenmann's section off of the lastest revision prior to Tompadompa's reversion, which is this. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. I am not reviewing the conduct of either editor.

While I see the rationale for a separate section being added for the life in/on stars section, I do not believe the sources included constitutes a separate section, per WP:PROPORTION, and the creation of a separate section gives what I believe to be undue weight to the topic. From my perspective, the sources cited in the section are very minimal in regards to the topic of the section. The current revision is what I believe to be a more acceptable version of the article in regards to the weight of the disputed topic. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 03:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to give my 2¢, I think Tompadompa has it right here. As with other such articles (like the discussion at Talk:Mars in fiction/Archive 2#Doom (1993 video game)), WP:PROPORTION is a very important consideration, to prevent articles on popular culture drifting in to listing every aspect that individual editors reccons should be there. See also WP:IPCV for another place that this approach is recommend. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 10:38, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My own 2c: how about you (@Altenmann) submit content to https://sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/stars ? I have worked with them myself (here is the second entry of mine published on their website - I need to expand our article on this now, it's a stub...) and they are open to submissions, they are also reliable, so after they publish your original research, it can be summarized back here. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would not say I care much about the subject. I understand the intent of WP:PROPORTION, but unfortunately in this case in my opinion it was applied too liberally. IMO "life in stars" is rare subject but not at all WP:TRIVIA. But I am not going lose my sleep over it. I have much more useless things on my list to add to Wikipedia :-), such as entries into Category:Lithuanian-language surnames or Glossary of pre-Christian Lithuanian names. - Altenmann >talk 16:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stars_in_fiction&oldid=1240819085"