Jump to content

Talk:Venus in fiction/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Zelazny

I moved "The Doors of His Face, the Lamps of His Mouth" from post-Mariner fiction over to pre-Mariner fiction. It's a judgement call, of course, but the story clearly features the pre-Mariner Venus, and although it appeared post-Mariner, it was written with pre-Mariner imagery. Geoffrey.landis 15:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Sargent, Pamela

i was looking here for brief discriptions of the venus books by Sargent, Pamela, which are listed on a nasa webpage: http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/mars/ask/colony/Extensive_literature_about_terraforming.txt

seems like if someone at nasa suggests them they ought to be in wikipedia.

i never read them and i'm not a real wikipedia dude so...195.75.254.121 (talk) 16:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Moved text from planet article

I moved the (very nice) mini-article on Venusian fiction from Venus to here, merging it with the existing text to form a new, lengthier essay before the list of works. YLee (talk) 01:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

A Tenderfoot in Space

An article about venus in fiction seems incomplete without mentioning "A Tenderfoot in Space" by Robert A. Heinlein. I would add it myself, except I'm not sure what section it would fit into. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.123.208.30 (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Merge lists from Venusians

Although there is material on Venusians that isn't appropriate for this article, the lists are essentially the same topic: fictional examples of Venus and its people. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:35, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

JasonAQuest, I think that entire article needs merging here. And this needs a major rewrite like we did with Earth in fiction. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Venus in fiction/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TompaDompa (talk · contribs) 14:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I will review this. As an initial observation, there are a few {{citation needed}} tags. TompaDompa (talk) 14:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments:

  • In general, the prose is rather flowery and example-heavy. It needs copyediting for tone and conciseness.  In progress That's a bit subjective. I'll ping User:Nihil novi, a copyeditor I know, to see if they'd like to read through this article? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:20, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
  • There are duplicate references to The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy, and both link to the wrong volume. Done
  • The article switches back and forth between Venus's and Venus'.  Done
  • There are a bunch of curly apostrophes and quotation marks that should be replaced with straight ones.  In progress Is there a script for this? I am terrible at fixing this manually. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:20, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
  • The image in the WP:LEAD seems mostly decorative. If there is something in particular that it is meant to illustrate, this should be clarified in the caption.  In progress Not sure how to clarify this better without going into OR. We discuss Venus representation in science fiction, including pulp magazines, and this is a cover of one with a Venusian story? I could modify the caption to this if you don't call me on OR :) ", Venus was also a common feature in short stories published in the early science fiction magazines. Here, a cover of the Planet Stories, Winter 1939 issue, featuring the story Gold Amazons of Venus." The first sentence is copied from the text where it is referenced. Whether this image should be moved to illustrate that section (now, imageless) instead of the lead, I am not sure. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:20, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Its impenetrable cloud cover gave science fiction writers free rein to speculate on conditions at its surface; all the more so when early observations showed that not only was it very similar in size to Earth, it possessed a substantial atmosphere. – "all the more so" is not a terribly encyclopaedic phrasing, and one would assume that a substantial atmosphere is a prerequisite for an impenetrable cloud cover.
  • The genre reached its peak between the 1930s and 1950s – genre?  Done Word removed
  • science had revealed some aspects of Venus, but not yet the harsh truth of its surface conditions – suggest "nature" rather than "truth".  Done
  • as the reality of Venus as a hostile, toxic inferno became known, the early tropes of adventures in a lush, verdant paradise – both "hostile, toxic inferno" and "lush, verdant paradise" are overly poetic phrasings here.  In progress I think that's subjective, other encyclopedias do use such terms, and we are talking about literature here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
    • I noticed that both phrasings appear verbatim in The Mammoth Encyclopedia of Science Fiction (Venus, before it was found to be a hostile, toxic inferno, was imagined to be a lush, verdant paradise.). That doesn't look good, especially considering that The Mammoth Encyclopedia of Science Fiction is not cited anywhere in the article. TompaDompa (talk) 02:49, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
      @TompaDompa Nice find, but I don't believe two adjectives + noun can be considered a copyvio (if the sentence was originally closer to that source, it went through enough rewordins sine). We are allowed to use the elegant (IMHO) expression "hostile, toxic inferno" and "lush, verdant paradise" without attribution, which I don't believe is necessary, given plethora of other sources supporting this kind of description in the body. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
      Not a copyvio, just not a terribly good look. TompaDompa (talk) 12:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Among the earliest representations of the planet Venus in fiction is – since this is followed by two examples, it should be "are".  Done
  • The first science fiction novel concerned specifically with Venus was Achille Eyraud's Voyage à Venus (1865). – WP:Close paraphrasing.  Done?
  • It was a common setting for many works of the scientific romance genre. – this is a stronger assertion than the cited source supports. The source only says Early Scientific Romances set on Venus include Gustavus W Pope's Romances of the Planets, No. 2: Journey to Venus (1895) and John Munro's A Trip to Venus (1897). Fair enough, removed as Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia actually says (p.547) "images of Venus were much rarer in scientific romance" - I think comparing it to the genre of exotic romance Stableford mentions few sentences earlier. But I am not sure "exotic romance" is a notable concept that that merits mentioning at all... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
  • A Narrative of the Travels and Adventures of Paul Aermont Among the Planets was published anonymously; "Paul Aermont" is not the name of the author but the name of the fictional narrator.  Done
  • Venus was large enough for entire series to be set there – improper editorializing. The sources do not attribute this to size.  Done I disagree this is editorializing, we are allowed to make some figures of speech, and I think this is what it is. That said, I see no problem with replacing this adjective with 'popular', which should address this issue. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
  • the early science fiction magazines – the word "pulp" should be included along with a link to pulp magazine.  Done
  • In the 1930s, Edgar Rice Burroughs wrote the "sword-and-planet" style "Venus series," set on a fictionalized version of Venus known as Amtor. – this is the same series as the one beginning with Pirates of Venus mentioned in the preceding paragraph. The details of this sentence ("sword-and-planet", "Venus series", "Amtor") are of course unsourced.
  • The Venus of Robert Heinlein's Future History series and Henry Kuttner's Fury resembled Arrhenius' vision of Venus. – Arrhenius' Venus has not been described up to this point. This sentence is also unsourced and tagged accordingly.  Done (the sentence has been rewritten/removed)
  • Venus cloud cover – should be "Venusian cloud cover", "cloud cover of Venus", or similar. Done
  • This link should be added to the Life on Other Worlds: The 20th-Century Extraterrestrial Life Debate reference.  Done
  • A link to Svante Arrhenius is sufficient, no need to refer to him as a chemist or a Nobel Prize winner as neither is relevant to his speculations about the conditions of Venus. I'm also not convinced that this example is really necessary.  Not done I respectfully disagree. The example is relevant, and clarifying that he was an important scholar and not a writer seems relevant. But I have removed it from this section as as you later point our correctly, its redundant to discuss this twice. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Early astronomers [...] perhaps a desert. is followed by five references, but I don't see why citing Launius or Taylor and Grinspoon is necessary here? It's also a rather long sentences with a bunch of commas and a parenthetical statement, so readability could probably be improved by restructuring it.  Not done The sentence went through some c/e since you saw it last, but the c/e and me did not think it requires major revision. Regarding too many cites, I am to opposed to removing some, but they all mention Arrhenius's claims. Do we remove some refs at random and then double-check every fact in that sentence is still verifiable? I'd leave it as it is and move on. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Many of the early portrayals of Venus and associated tropes relate to the life and landscape of Venus. – this adds very little and should be removed for conciseness.  Done (the sentence has been rewritten/removed)
  • portrayed it is as a – stray "is".  Done
  • a view that only in time because modified by scientific findings – was "became" meant here? I'm also not quite clear on what "only in time" is supposed to convey here. The sentence is in general a bit difficult to parse.  Done (the sentence has been rewritten/removed). Well, the because word removed. In time, I think, is self explanatory from the context; in either way, the article has been copyedit by another editor and they didn't see this expression as problematic enough to remove. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:24, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
  • The image of the ruins in the jungle does not pass WP:IMAGERELEVANCE. The ruins are at least as visually striking a feature as the jungle, but it is the latter the image is presumably meant to illustrate. The visual impression one gets is not so much "the jungles of Venus" as "the ruins of a civilization".  Not done I see your point, but first, it's subjective (although I do agree with you, actually), and second, we don't have other free images to replace this with. I wasn't happy that this is the best I found, but it is what it is. I wouldn't be opposed to replacing this, but semi-relevan image is still IMHO superior to no image. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:24, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
  • The quote from Sagan should not receive this prominent a placement. It's a pretty interesting quote, but it should either be worked into the main prose or removed altogether. Done
  • Many writers and scientists expected that the planet would have land masses, but not dry ones. – "expected that the planet would have land masses" is a slightly weird phrasing, and one that I would expect to be accompanied by an explanation of what else they should expect if not that (an entirely gaseous planet? An entirely solid planet without surface divisions? An entirely liquid-covered planet?). The meaning of "not dry ones" is also not entirely clear.  Done replaced with "and a humid climate". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:29, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Venus of swamps and jungles – suggest that "of" be replaced by something else, perhaps "covered with".  Done
  • Fred T. Jane does not need to be linked twice.  Done
  • Arrhenius' (incorrect) deductions about Venus are mentioned in two separate paragraphs. Once is enough, and the combined length is clearly disproportionate. I also did some quick spot-checking, and it doesn't seem like it is entirely supported by the cited sources either.  In progress I removed the redundancy; can you clarify what isn't entirely supported by the cited sources? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
  • This has been reflected in other works or fiction and became "a staple of pulp science fiction imagnery". – it should be clarified what "this" refers to. There is a tense mismatch between "has been reflected" and "became". The last word has a typo and should be "imagery".  Done
  • Several of Stanley G. Weinbaum short stories – either remove "of" or say "Weinbaum's".  Done
  • short stories of the 1930s – suggest either writing "1930s short stories" or "short stories from the 1930s" to avoid the possible interpretation "short stories depicting the 1930s".  Done
  • set in the tropical jungles of Venus – what the source says is "on a tropical Venus". Tropical doesn't necessarily mean jungle. Done
    • Now it says set in Venusian jungles, which is even further from what the source says. TompaDompa (talk) 02:49, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
      @TompaDompa Can you elaborate on what does the source say and why you find it not supported? Seriously, half the sources talk about Venusian swamps and jungles, this is the major part of the very trope we are discussing... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
      The source says In the 1930s, Stanley G. Weinbaum set several classic short stories on a tropical Venus. whereas the article currently says Several of Weinbaum's short stories from the 1930s are set in Venusian jungles. Tropical ≠ jungles. I would just remove this and write about Weinbaum's depictions of life on the planet in the appropriate section instead, since that's what the sources focus on (depictions of extraterrestrial life is also what Weinbaum is perhaps most known for). TompaDompa (talk) 12:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
  • set on "swampy landscapes" of Venus – the quotation marks should be removed. It should either be "set on the swampy landscapes of Venus" or "set on swampy landscapes on Venus".  Done
  • Pirates of Venus is variously identified as being from 1932 and 1934.  Done "It was first serialized in six parts in Argosy in 1932 and published in book form two years later by Edgar Rice Burroughs, Inc. " Sigh. *rolls the dice* I'll go with 1932 for the first mention an remove it as unnecessary repetition from the second. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:19, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
  • several more sequels – remove "more". Done
  • portray the fungal, fetid Venusian swamps – what the source says is "saw Venus as a world of unhealthy fecundity whose swamps were rife with fungal disease", which is not quite the same.  In progress I think it's close enough, feel free to suggest a rewrite. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:19, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Ray Bradbury's short stories "The Long Rain" and "All Summer in a Day" also depicted Venus as a habitable planet with incessant rain. – not found in the cited source.  Done new ref added
    • The added source doesn't verify the jungle setting of the latter story, and the SFE source doesn't really verify "habitable" (which is word that could simply be removed) for the former story. TompaDompa (talk) 02:49, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
      @TompaDompa I've reworded the sentence slightly and added a new source that discusses this story with the focus on the rain. However, "Habitable" is common sense, since humans can survive there, and so does various animals. Jungles are, common sensicaly, habitable, and planets that sport them, even more so. As such, I don't see a problem with that word. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
      "Habitable" implies "for humans", so is fine if humans are mentioned living there but not otherwise. Anyway, this has been resolved now. TompaDompa (talk) 12:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
  • "The Long Rain" and "Death-by-Rain" are the same story.  Done
  • Venus as Panthalassa – should be "as a panthalassa" with indefinite article, no initial capital letter, and no link. The capitalized version that is linked is a specific example of an "all-ocean" that existed in Earth's history.  In progress I've clarified it was intended to be a comparison. I certainly think the link is very much needed for context. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
  • could not exist, they said, because – not a terribly encyclopaedic phrasing. Should be rephrased, perhaps along the lines of "were thought impossible due to the assumption that".  Done
  • The City of Lost Books is a blog. Only a very small part of the material it is cited for (about Stapledon's Last and First Men) is supported by the other source, so it needs to be replaced.  In progress Aaaggh, I lost my replies for two hours work. TL;DR, the author is an academic so this meets WP:SPS. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Works such as d Clifford D. Simak’s – stray "d". Simak is already linked above.  Done
  • a Cambrian-like Venus covered by a near-planet-wide ocean filled with exotic aquatic life – this goes far beyond what the cited sources actually say.
  • portrays mankind survivors from devastated Earth living in Venusian submarines – the source says mankind lives in the submarine "keeps" of Venus. That would be underwater fortresses (or lairs, perhaps), not submarines.  Done
  • and has even inspired a 1991 sequel – should be stated more matter-of-factly. Done
  • In 1922 [...] – unsourced and tagged accordingly.  Done
  • Among the more original visions of Venus is that from one of the early novels set on there, namely Garrett Serviss' A Columbus of Space – assessments of originality need to come from the sources and should not be stated as facts since they are subjective. This sentence is also phrased in a very indirect way which makes it much longer than it needs to be.  Done
  • "tidal-locked" should be "tidally locked".  Done
  • On the other hand, the lack of common vision of Venus resulted in less consistent, or non-existent, mythology of Venus (particularly compared to the image of Mars in fiction). – I can't quite put my finger on why, but I found this a bit difficult to parse. Done
  • described the situation as a writer equivalent of a "cosmic Rorschach test" – remove "a writer equivalent of". The quotation marks do the trick. Link to Rorschach test (MOS:LINKQUOTE says that we usually shouldn't put links inside quotations, but this is one of the exceptions where we should).
  • with numerous authors populating the land Venusian featureless clouds with various exotic but usually habitable settings – it seems like a few words might be missing here?  Done
  • The image of the cover of An Earth Man on Venus needs a caption that makes it clear what it is meant to illustrate (presumably something about the kinds of lifeforms that are found on Venus in fictional works?) or else be removed.  Done
  • Gustavus Pope's Journey to Venus (1895) – earlier in the article, it's Gustavus W. Pope’s Romances of the Planets, no 2: Journey to Venus. Both the author's name and the title should be rendered consistently, and the author should only be linked once.  Done
  • is a classic early science fiction – in this sense, "classic" is a MOS:Word to watch. The source doesn't use that word.  Done
  • Perhaps owing to the association of Venus with the goddess of love: – the colon here is a bit odd. I'd just use a comma.  Done
  • intelligent natives of Venus, known as Venusians, – this could be replaced with only "Venusians". The sources don't really explicitly say that the natives of Venus are known as Venusians nor do they speak of intelligent Venusians versus non-intelligent ones.  Done
  • gentle, ethereal, and beautiful – the source only says gentle and ethereal, from which beautiful may be inferred regardless.  In progress I think it's a useful qualiier, used by ESF too. Done
  • an enduring image – rather than labelling it as such, present the facts about its longevity.  Done Removed.
  • Bernard le Bovyer de Fontenelle's Entretiens sur la pluralité des mondes habités (1686; translated to English by J Glanvill as A Plurality of Worlds in 1929) – we have an article at Bernard Le Bovier de Fontenelle. We also have an article at Conversations on the Plurality of Worlds. The translation details should be removed.  Done
  • This trope has been repeated [...] – I would try to combine this sentence with the preceding one. I would also combine the two paragraphs about Venusians.  Done
  • winged, angel-like Venusian – "angel-like" is not supported by the cited source, but you can just add Stableford p. 547 to address that.  Done
  • is later the protagonist of an interplanetary tour in the form of a series of nine Letters from the Planets (1887-1893) – WP:Close paraphrasing.  Done
  • A similar trope, of a Venusian visitor to Earth, is seen in – I would just say "A Venusian also visits Earth in". The word "trope" appears quite a few times in the article and is a more conspicuous term than "theme" or "motif" (where those would be appropriate).  Done
  • Both James William Barlow and John Munro penned in-depth descriptions of Venusian civilizations in their, respectively, A History of a Race of Immortals Without a God (1891) and A Trip to Venus (1897). – the source only seems to say this about the former?  Done
  • Even before the era of space probes, – the sentence would read better if this bit were removed and the sentence started with "Scientific discourse [...]". The next sentence gets into space probes anyway.  Done
  • as the advanced methods of observation of Venus suggested its atmosphere lacks any oxygen – I would say more advanced rather than the advanced. I would say "lacks oxygen" or "is devoid of oxygen".  Done
  • After the onset of the space race in the early second half of the 20th century – Space Race should be linked if it is mentioned at all, but this could all be replaced with the word "Later" in the interest of conciseness. Done
  • found that the planet's surface temperature was 800 °F (427 °C) – I think it's pretty obvious that 800°F is an approximate value, so 427°C is a value with false precision. The sources are sufficient to say that the temperature is above 800°F and above 400°C. One might also consider something along the lines of "hundreds of degrees above the boiling point of water", which is a comparison the sources don't explicitly make but it's such a standard one that it shouldn't be hard to find one that does.  Done (added above, not changing further since I think it's ok otherwise)
  • "Obsolescent" means "in the process of becoming obsolete". In this context it should be "obsolete".  Done
  • does occasionally resurfaces – grammar. Done
  • scientific understanding of venus – capitalization. Done
  • exploration and survival of the hostile Venus – exploration of, but survival on. I also don't know that this really reflects what the cited sources say. Done With minor tweaks, and I think this is what they say... :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Other enduring concepts include the topics of colonization of Venus and terraforming of Venus. – "Other enduring concepts include the topics of" is a bit clunky. I would also suggest writing "colonizing and terraforming Venus" with links to the broader articles space colonization and terraforming here. Links to Colonization of Venus and Terraforming of Venus can go in their respective sections below.  Not done I reread it and I think it's fine as it is. It's referenced and connects to the subsequent sections.
  • It should be mentioned that sci-fi interest in the planet diminished when its inhospitability became better understood. Both The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia mention this. Done
    • It now says Following a brief period of disinterest in writing stories set in the Solar System, now known to be a rather hostile environment [...] – surely that should be Venus rather than the entire Solar System? TompaDompa (talk) 02:49, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
    @TompaDompa Right you are, fixed.  Done Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Rather than saying "While the idea of colonizing Venus [...], it grew [...]", I would say "Colonization of Venus [...], and grew [...]".  Not done I think the current wording is more clear. Subjective, I guess, but this went through copyediting that the copyeditor didn't change that part (although they did change many others you pointed out). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
  • has been penned – suggest "appeared in fiction".  Done
  • more challenging that – than.  Done
  • the trilogy by Rolf Garner (beginning with Resurgent Dust, 1953) – only the year should be in parentheses.  Done
  • Philip Latham's Robinsonade Five Against Venus (1952) – is it really a story about the colonization of Venus? The source only describes it as a robinsonade (which should apparently not be capitalized, going by our article on the topic as well as SFE's), which to me would seem to indicate that it's not a story about colonizing Venus but rather being stranded on it. Done That's an interesting argument. Isn't being stranded a failed colonization? Conversly, being stranted and prosperin, succesfull? I think if the sources mention this in this context, it's fine to keep it there, with a link to Robinsonade. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
  • As scientific knowledge of Venus advanced, so science fiction authors endeavored to keep pace – "so" should be removed for grammar. This is also an overly intricate way of phrasing it, and I don't know that it's really supported by the cited source. Done It's a bit poetic but I think it represents the source intention. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
    • Looking back at it, I think it's an acceptable way of paraphrasing/summarizing the source's But as our knowledge of the planets has changed, the environments in the corresponding science-fiction stories have also changed. It is satisfyingly rare to find a science-fiction story written today that posits algae farms on the surface of Venus. (especially combined with another source saying As SF writers gradually came to terms with astronomical revelations about the utter inhospitability of the other planets in the solar system, the idea of effecting ecospheric metamorphoses inevitably became more important) in terms of content, but I stand by that it is an overly intricate way of putting it. TompaDompa (talk) 02:49, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't think "conjecturing" is the right word. [1]
  • An early treatment of the concept is already found in – "already" is redundant to "early". [1]
  • Venus inhospit, ability – should use possessive and say "inhospitability".[1]
  • partial terraformed – partially.[1]
  • some works, for instance James E. Gunn's 1955 novella "The Naked Sky" (retitled "The Joy Ride") starts on a partial terraformed Venus where the colonists live underground to get away from the still-deadly atmosphere. – do several works start like this or only this one? It's an anacoluthon either way.  Done Nuked during an earlier rewrite
  • Arthur C. Clarke's 1997 novel 3001: The Final Odyssey, for example – as an example of what? One would expect this to refer to something in the preceding sentence but it doesn't seem like it does.  Done nuked
  • There are several instances of "terraforming of Venus" that should either be "the terraforming of Venus" or "terraforming Venus".  Done
  • Terraforming should be linked at the first occurrence (or second, if the first occurrence links to terraforming of Venus), not several occurrences later. Done
  • The Venus Belt does not seem to be an example of Venus being terraformed, so it's out of place in this section.  Done nuked
  • Given the findings [...] commercial exploitation. – unsourced and tagged accordingly.  Done nuked
  • set against the background discuss the topic of terraforming – this is an anacoluthon and it's not entirely clear what is meant to be conveyed.  Done rewritten
  • "into a more Earthlike world" is redundant to "terraforming" by definition.  Done
  • Other more recent works on this topic include – "more recent" seems a bit odd here, considering how the paragraph is structured. It's also a bit unclear what "this topic" refers to—is it terraforming Venus in general or something more specific?  Done
  • "The Snow of Venus" – I believe that should be "The Snows of Venus".  Done
  • featuring a rediscovered domed colony abandoned during a prior terraforming project has been described as paying homage to the "traditional" science-fictional Venus – I believe the homage in question is the fact that the dome contains a jungle. That also makes the placement of this questionable.  Done moved up and clarified
  • has been described – WP:WTW. Attribute to the author or the work.  Done
  • Nordley's "Dawn Venus" (1995) already features a terraformed, Earth-like Venus. – already?  Done
  • the theme of terraforming Venus reflects both the scientific aspect of science fiction, particularly popular in hard science-fiction, but also – "both" is always followed by "and", never by "but also". The hyphen should be removed. I also don't think this is what the source is saying.  Partly done fixed grammar, but I think this represents what the source is saying. How would you suggest to rephrase this further? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
    • I would remove the middle portion of the sentence, leaving [...] theme of terraforming Venus reflects a desire to recapture [...] TompaDompa (talk) 02:49, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
      @TompaDompa I've added two refs for the middle part, i.e. terraforming of Venus in the context of hard sf. I'd prefer them to discus the connection more clearly, but I think this is what they meant. Please take a look when you have the time. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
      Since the sentence starts by saying that Gillett suggests this, citing the other sources ends up attributing what other people say to Gillett. Gillett doesn't really say that terraforming reflects the scientific aspect of science fiction. I also don't think that the suggested connection between terraforming Venus and hard science fiction is backed up by the additional sources. All told, I still think the middle portion of the sentence should be removed (leaving [...] theme of terraforming Venus reflects a desire to recapture [...]) along with the newly-added sources. TompaDompa (talk) 12:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
      I removed the middle part of the sentence as I suggested. TompaDompa (talk) 02:49, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
  • The image of the floating outpost does not illustrate the colonisation of Venus in works of fiction particularly well, and doesn't really have a counterpart in the prose. I would suggest replacing it with an image of a terraformed Venus.  Not done I couldn't find a relevant better image to replace this with. Feel free to suggest one. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

TompaDompa (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@Piotrus: I have updated my comments above and added strikethrough markup to the ones that have been satisfactorily resolved. I will return and make additional comments (and update the "summary" section below) later. TompaDompa (talk) 02:49, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

@TompaDompa Can you tell me which issues you consider as still in need of addressing? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Section break

@Piotrus:Indeed, I have been working on it. I have added strikethrough markup to some more comments that have since been resolved. Further comments:

Lead

Early depictions: exotic tropics

Jungle and swamp

Ocean

Desert

  • In 1922 Charles Edward St. John and Seth B. Nicholson, failing to detect the spectroscopic signs of oxygen or water in the atmosphere, proposed a dusty, windy, desert Venus – This goes a fair bit beyond what the sources say. What St. John and Nicholson proposed, according to the sources, was that the atmosphere (more specifically the upper layer they could observe) had at most minimal amounts of water vapor (and oxygen, not that it's really relevant) and that the clouds could be dust clouds—but also regular water vapor clouds under conditions that could create clouds with water vapor levels below the threshold of detection by their instruments. The actual surface of the planet being desertic is a different matter altogether. I would remove this.
    • Reworded to be more true to the source, I think it is still relevant. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:37, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
      • The current phrasing—In 1922 observations by Charles Edward St. John and Seth B. Nicholson failing to detect the spectroscopic signs of oxygen or water in the upper atmosphere, paved a way for the discussions of a dusty, windy, desert Venus—also goes a fair bit beyond what the cited sources say. What Launius says is By the 1930s the detection of carbon dioxide in its thick atmosphere forced scientists grudgingly to abandon the idea that Venus contained a carboniferous swamp. The scientists investigating Venus replaced the pre-Cambrian environment, as Carl Sagan noted in 1961, for "an arid planetary desert, overlain by clouds of dust from the wind-swept surface". They continued to search for water vapor, but failed to find it. What scientists found was carbon dioxide, a lot of it; a layer of gas roughly equivalent to a two mile deep ocean at a pressure similar to that of Earth. (and going back to Sagan's 1961 article, what it says is After many unsuccessful spectroscopic attempts to discover water vapor in the Cytherean atmosphere, the hypothetical Carboniferous swamp was generally abandoned, to be replaced by an arid planetary desert, overlain by clouds of dust from the wind-swept surface.). The heavy emphasis on St. John and Nicholson in the history of the idea that Venus might be a desert planet is not really justified by the cited sources. And this is after all mining sources on a different topic (Venus itself) when the article should be based on sources on Venus in fiction. TompaDompa (talk) 23:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
        We could remove links to " by Charles Edward St. John and Seth B. Nicholson ". But the rest of the content seems relevant. The desert variant was based on some scientific theories, and we should discuss is origin, as supported by sources you cite. But perhaps you can suggest a more elegant and true-to-the-sources way to do it? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:36, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
        I would probably stick to just saying that the idea of Venus having abundant water was controversial while only citing Gillett. Going by the sources, the desert vision of Venus is a rather minor aspect of the topic of Venus in fiction. TompaDompa (talk) 02:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
        I am at a loss how to change this section. Can you edit it directly? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:15, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
        Done. TompaDompa (talk) 00:07, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
  • It's Rupert Wildt, not Rubert.
  • discussed how a greenhouse effect might result in a similar outcome – the outcome here is hot, not dry as one might reasonably infer. This should be clarified (it could also be removed; it's not essential).
  • The source describes Venus in The Big Rain as hot (and poisonous), but not dry, so either an additional source should be located or this example removed.
  • The Fury from Earth is according to the cited source from 1963, not 1964.

Other

  • Already in 1909 Serviss' A Columbus of Space (1909) depicted – I don't see a reason to say "Already" when this is not contrasted with anything later, and the year should only be mentioned once.
Ok. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
The year is still mentioned twice. TompaDompa (talk) 23:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Fixed. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:58, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
  • and the other half, in perpetual darkness – remove the comma.
Ok. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Stephen L. Gillet – it's "Gillett". This error appears a number of times (including in the reference).
Fixed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Later depictions: hostile inferno

  • After the onset [...] understood. – This is a very long sentence (with no fewer than six commas) that should be condensed for brevity and split into shorter sentences for readability.
Split. Not fond of condensing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
  • writers interest – should be "writers' interest".
Fixed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
  • (Although the designs for the Soviet Venera probes still considered the possibility of a water landing as late as 1964). – this comes off as rather an afterthought, and it's not really relevant to fictional depictions of Venus. I would just remove it.
Right. Moved to Venera article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
  • The theme of Earth-like, warm Venus – Editorializing. I would replace it with something like "Earlier visions of Venus" (in which case the later "resurfaces" needs to be replaced with "resurface" to match the plural form).
I don't see how this is WP:EDITORIALIZING? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Call it WP:INTERPRETATION, then. The point is that Earth-like, warm Venus isn't what the sources say. TompaDompa (talk) 23:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
@TompaDompa Stableford says "nostalgic farewells to Venerean Romanticism" and the other source is very similar. In either case, what is the "earlier visions of Venus"? The sources do discuss them. Venerean Romanticism etc. refers "Old Venus", few pages down, talks about "stories set in the kind of nostalgic, habitable Venus found in the works of writers like...". "Habitable Venus" is the "Earth-like, warm Venus" discussed under the 'jungle/swamp, ocean and desert' chapters. This is not interpretation, this is commons sense. Anyway, for now I've added the adjective 'nostalgic', since both sources use it. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:07, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
"Habitable" would be fine ("romantic" could also work, but then I think the sentence might need to be rephrased). The sentence now starts The nostalgic theme of Earth-like, warm Venus occasionally resurfaces in deliberately nostalgic "retro-sf", with "nostalgic" used twice. TompaDompa (talk) 02:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
I removed one of the double nostalgic. I don't see the need to change the other wording. Space station can be habitable, but is not Earth-like, so I feel the current wording is superior. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:17, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Done. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Colonization

  • was penned – suggest "appeared".
Ok. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
  • It should be noted that "The Last Judgment" is an essay, rather than a short story as might be expected.
Ok. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
  • The first Stableford citation in this section should be page 548 (or at least 547–548), not 547.
Ok. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Ok. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Stick to either "Cyril M. Kornbluth" or "C. M. Kornbluth" (or just "Kornbluth", as appropriate) for consistency. I suggest the former, as that's the title of the article here on Wikipedia.
Ok. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Ok. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Link Five Against Venus (but see below).
  • From what I can gather, Five Against Venus is not a story of failed colonization but of an unintentional crash landing. It should at minimum be mentioned separately and noted as a variation on the theme. Per Westfahl p. 672, Niven's "Becalmed in Hell" is also a story of being accidentally stranded on Venus, so it might be most appropriate to mention these two stories together (but that would take some restructuring since Five Against Venus doesn't belong where "Becalmed in Hell" is currently mentioned chronologically).
    • I am not sure how to do this. [5] mentions Five as a colonization story. Does any source say that it is also a story of surviving an accident? Becalmed in Hell is already described as such. If We have a source for Five in the context of survival, then it could be added as a mention to the preceeding section ("exploration of, and survival in, the hostile environment of Venus, as pictured in"). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
      • This review says The whole family takes off for the moon when Papa Robinson is offered a job on that fast developing satellite. But the ship goes haywire, spins out of control and crashes on Venus. Faced by weird Venusian horrors, the family really battles for existence on a wild and barbaric planet. SFE doesn't really call it a colonization story, it's just mentioned in a separate sentence in a paragraph that discusses colonization stories. TompaDompa (talk) 23:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
        @TompaDompa I think you are right it is a stretch to call ita colonization story. I moved the mention of it to an earlier section (it doesn't fit in the survival in hostile inferno and it still portrays Venus as rather habitable/Earth-like, just "wild"). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:22, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Marta Randall's "Big Dome" (1985), featuring a rediscovered domed colony abandoned during a prior terraforming project, whose jungle-like setting has been described [...] – anacoluthon. Removing the first comma and replacing "featuring" with "features" would solve this, though it might flow better if the sentence were more substantially rewritten.
Done, I hope. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Terraforming

Done. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
  • It is not clear why the examples of terraforming are organized as they are across several sentences and two paragraphs. Last and First Men is mentioned separately as an early work and "Dawn Venus" as one where the terraforming has already been completed (though that also appears to be true of Shadows of the White Sun), which makes some sense, but why are the other seven examples grouped as they are?
Reorganized them chronologically as examples mentioned in RS, without any deeper discussion, sadly. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
  • See my comments above about the last paragraph.

Lifeforms

Beasts

  • Pope has been linked in a previous section (albeit with his middle initial included).
  • Either include Pope's middle initial for consistency or just use the surname.
Done and done. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
  • revolves around an encounter – fairly strong statement when the cited source only says that the story describes the encounter. Citing Westfahl p. 672, which says that the story is essentially a retelling of Hemingway's The Old Man and the Sea, would in my opinion resolve this.
Done. Minor issue here. GBooks says it's two volumes. Do we know which volume are we citing here? Is this a GBook error? The book's cover doesn't say anything about it being volume 1 or 2. Worldcat [6] says "1 online resource (2 volumes)". Can you figure out what's going on here? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't know. Could it perhaps be the case that it's two volumes in print form (as is sometimes done with lengthy reference works) but only one as an eBook? TompaDompa (talk) 23:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Right. I'll remove [2 volumes] from the citation as it's does not seem to be the "official" part of the title. Could be one book with one ISBN split into two volumes, I guess. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:51, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
  • depictions of life on Venus became more nuanced – I don't think "nuanced" is the right word here. I would perhaps describe the first two examples as "exotic", "outlandish", or even "alien" (the source doesn't use any of these words or put it in similar terms—it only prefaces the examples by saying that The desire to find life remains strong—but I think it's fair to describe them thusly anyway) and say that depictions of on Venus ranged from those to the more mundane cloud-borne microbes.
Fair point. Changed to exotic. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Venusians

  • 1887-1893 – should be 1887–1893 with an MOS:ENDASH.
Done. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

TompaDompa (talk) 12:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Another section break

I have taken the liberty of addressing some of these issues myself. These issues still need to be resolved:

In general:

Nice finds. New section media summarizes, or rewords, those contents. Wish there was at least one more source for each to make it less of a derivative. It's nice that we can mention Lem, it's still is way too little as for globalizing this, but well, sources are sources. For example, a big missing aspect to me is treatment in non-American fiction. Maurice Leblanc's fr:Les Trois Yeux (wikisource:The Three Eyes), for example, seems like a classic.
None of the sources cited seem to mention Vogt's A Can of Paint. For whatever reason, when translated to Polish, the title was changed to "Venusian Crystal Cube", and then adapted as the title of one of the first anthologies of Western sf published in Poland (pl:Kryształowy sześcian Wenus).
Then there's the entire "Venus in anime". Not a major theme, but still, there is Venus Wars, or the Waltz for Venus episode of Cowboy Bebop. And as for the films, which is of course incomplete (Voyage to the Prehistoric Planet, Voyage to the Planet of Prehistoric Women, etc.), we could also use a section on television (The Expanse, for example). And games. Category:Video games set on Venus, plus board games too (terrafoming Venus is featured in Venus Next expansion of Terraforming Mars, classic Venus is the theme of Onward to Venus [7])...
So yeah, there's a ton to write, the problem is OR. What's your take on mentioning such stuff when they are not covered by overiews of Venus in fition, just in stuff like a review of a particular work? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:01, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
I take a fairly conservative approach to what goes in the article. Aspects that are not covered by overview articles I interpret as being WP:MINORASPECTS that it would be inappropriate to cover. Examples should also ideally come from overview articles, though using other sources to elaborate on their details is fine (not the works themselves though—secondary or tertiary sources); I often use SFE overview articles to decide on including an example and then use the SFE article on the author to be able to add a bit more detail about the work in question, for instance.[a] Occasionally it may be appropriate to use examples from other sources to get a more well-rounded set of examples for the article as a whole, but that needs to be done with care. I sometimes take a look at what SFE articles link to the overview article (found by clicking "About This Entry" at the top, leading to e.g. https://sf-encyclopedia.com/incoming.php?entry=venus) to find additional examples.
A way to make it less derivative that I often use is interspersing the examples throughout the text as appropriate rather than devoting a separate section/paragraph to the specific medium. TompaDompa (talk) 16:39, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
@TompaDompa I hear you. That said, it's sad that we have to compromise. I respect OR, but IMHO the entries in SF encyclopedia and like are generally obsolete (mostly pre-21st century) and miss important modern developments. Further, they are suffering from major US-centric or at least English-centric bias, which can be summed up as "wait, what, there is literature/stuff written not in English"? Maybe I should look for some Polish-language sources discussion of Venus in sf... hmmm. (Not that it would cover German, Spanish, Chinese or Japanese sf... sigh). The Balkanization of such things by language lines is a major problem. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
@Piotrus: I just noticed that Venus Wars and Cowboy Bebop are both mentioned in Wanderer am Himmel: Die Welt der Planeten in Astronomie und Mythologie, as are the role-playing games Space: 1889, Mutant Chronicles, Eclipse Phase, and Transhuman Space. This source also (briefly) uses the term retro science fiction (Heutzutage finden sich Saurier und Amazonen nur noch in erklärter Retro-Science-Fiction). TompaDompa (talk) 02:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
@TompaDompa As I don't read German, and Google Books are not, to my knowledge, translatable, can I ask you to use this source to expands text, assuming you read German? If not, perhaps we can ask Daranios, who I think does. (I am looking at Polish sources but not finding much except about the Soviet Planet Bur). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I expanded it slightly. TompaDompa (talk) 04:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Early depictions: exotic tropics

  • A number of the earliest descriptions painted Venus as a beautiful paradisiac planet, a view that was only in time modified by scientific findings. – the second half of this sentence is not really supported by the cited source. It's also something of a non sequitur with the following sentence (As observed by Carl Sagan in 1978: "A clement twilight zone on a synchronously rotating Mercury, a swamp-and-jungle Venus, and a canal-infested Mars, while all classic science-fiction devices, are all, in fact, based upon earlier misapprehensions by planetary scientists.") since the paradise-like Venus and the swamp-and-jungle Venus are not the same.
Added the word primodial and a ref that should cover all aspects. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Jungle and swamp

Changing jungles to tropics seems like a simpler solution? (Done) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Ocean

  • (resembling Earth's Panthalassa) – As discussed above, the sources that use the term "panthalassa" aren't talking about Earth's Panthalassa but the general concept of a planet-wide ocean (even the source that uses a capital P), so this should be removed. Earth's Panthalassa wasn't even a planet-wide ocean—it covered about as much of the planet's surface as our current World Ocean does, it was just a different shape.
I assume you looked at the source found and added? Doesn't it suffice for linking of Panthalassa in this context? That said, I'd like to add a link to Ocean world. Do you think some of our sources support linking that or do we need to find something new? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
I did look at that source, yes. And no, it doesn't (see my comments above). Linking to Ocean world is perfectly fine—the main reason I haven't suggested it is that Earth technically counts as one. TompaDompa (talk) 16:39, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Later depictions: hostile inferno

  • The theme of Earth-like, warm Venus occasionally resurfaces – "Earth-like, warm" isn't really supported by the sources. Describing it as "habitable" would work, as would describing it as a "romantic", "earlier", or "pre-Mariner" vision of Venus.
Changed to "The theme of habitable, romantic, pre-Mariner Venus occasionally resurfaces". Although I don't think that Earth-like is OR, it's implied by numerous sources, and I think we should 3O this too.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Beasts

  • One of the inspirations for portraying Venus as home to a vociferous ecosystem was Weinbaum's "Parasite Planet" (1935). – "vociferous" is a bit weird in context. Did you mean "voracious"?
Indeed. Fixed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
  • One of the inspirations for portraying Venus as home to a vociferous ecosystem was Weinbaum's "Parasite Planet" (1935). – not really what the source says. It says that Asimov was inspired by Weinbaum's Venusian ecosystems, though I think it would be better to just write about Weinbaum's portrayals of Venusian life on their own merits.
    • I don't see the difference. The inspiration part is relevant as the source says, IMHO, that Weinbaum's vision proved enduring, so it's not just that it needs desribing, but it needs to be shown as significant (influencing later works). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
      • I rephrased it to Weinbaum portrayed Venus as home to a voracious ecosystem in "Parasite Planet" (1935), and his ecosystems in that story and others inspired other authors such as Asimov. to better reflect what the source says. TompaDompa (talk) 16:39, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I will re-assess the WP:LEAD once the body is in satisfactory shape. TompaDompa (talk) 02:49, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Lead

  • In general, the lead is a bit brief. To a large extent, this is a result of covering multiple aspects in the same sentence. It would almost certainly read a lot better if each aspect got more "space", so-to-speak. There is definitely room for more details.
  • the planet was often depicted as warmer but still habitable by humans. – warmer than Earth, presumably.
  • Depictions of Venus as a lush, verdant paradise, an oceanic planet, or fetid swampland, often inhabited by dinosaur-like monsters, became common in early pulp science fiction, particularly between the 1930s and 1950s, when science had revealed some aspects of Venus but not yet the harsh nature of its surface conditions. – this needs copyediting for readability. It would probably be best to split it into shorter sentences.
  • Overall, Venus was considered to have much less of an established setting than its sister planet, Mars. – "considered" is a MOS:Word to watch. Either attribute this, or rephrase it. I would suggest the latter (it is unattributed in the body—The absence of a common vision of Venus resulted in the less coherent mythology of Venus, particularly compared with the image of Mars in fiction.).
  • From the mid-20th century on, as the reality of Venus as a hostile, toxic inferno became known, the early tropes of adventures in Venusian tropics gave way to more realistic stories of the planet's colonization and terraforming, although the vision of tropical Venus is occasionally revisited in intentionally retro stories. – this is also a sentence that should probably be split into shorter sentences (not least because it's a single-sentence paragraph).
  • If you devote a separate section of the article to film and comic book depictions, this aspect needs to be covered in the lead. If you instead intersperse film and comic book examples in the article, it's not necessary.
  • I don't think that listing a large number of writers is a good way to summarize this topic. It puts an overly large amount on emphasis on the "who" (rather than the "what", "how", "when", and "why"). The selection of writers and their description as "early major writers of science fiction" is also a bit dubious.

On the whole, this is getting fairly close to WP:Good article quality. TompaDompa (talk) 16:39, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

@TompaDompa I've c/e lead. I couldn't figure out a way to mention comic books there (I think they are fairly unimportant). I am not sure how to rewrite the paragraph enumerating writers. AS before, you are welcome to try your hand at changing this, I am having the "writers block" issues moving beyond some of my wording. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
I've done some further copyediting of the lead. As a further improvement, I would suggest replacing often inhabited by dinosaur-like monsters with a separate sentence dedicated to non-humanoid life on Venus. I'll see if I can come up with something to do about the list of writers besides straight-up removing it. TompaDompa (talk) 17:17, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm afraid I've been unable to think of anything to do to fix the list of writers besides just removing it. I toyed with the idea of saying something about when the different authors wrote their stories on Venus (e.g. the 1950s for Asimov), but couldn't come up with a way to make it work. This and the WP:OR Panthalassa comparison are the only outstanding issues that are deal-breakers for WP:Good article status to me. TompaDompa (talk) 04:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
I'll ping User:Daranios (TIA!) to make a call on those issues, b/c I do disagree that they pose a problem. Daranios, to sum up, TD thinks we should remove mentions of author's names from the lead, and the term Panthalassa. For the latter, I recommend CTRL+F 'Panthalassa' so you can see our discussion in circles. Third opinion to break the deadlock is much needed :) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:01, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
@Piotrus and TompaDompa: I don't have a strong opinion on either point. If I had to decide, I would leave in the sentence listing the authors in the lead. I would remove the link to Panthalassa following TompaDompa's argument here. That was a superocean, but not an example of a "planet-wide" ocean to the point that there are only a few islands. That article is also relatively specific to Earth and that period, etc., so not that helpful to envisioning such a setting in general. However, I would also be somewhat sad to see the term panthalassa removed from the article, as it seems to appear in a number of secondary sources. Linking to Ocean world is undisputed. So would there be a compromised possible along the lines "Others envisioned Venus as a panthalassic planet, being entirely covered by (an?) ocean with perhaps a few islands."? Daranios (talk) 07:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
@Daranios I am fine with such a rewrite, although isn't my currnet wording: "(resembling Earth's Panthalassa)", at the same level as "a panthalassic planet"? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
@Piotrus: Well, "panthalassic planet" is one of the listed synonyms for the general concept of "Ocean world", while Earth's Panthalassa, is the one specific superocean in Earth's history. I think it would be fair to draw that parallel to Panthalassa - the definition of ocean world, as TompaDompa has mentioned somewhere, I think, does include a world like ours with significant land but even more water area. But it's not a perfect fit to the image I get from Venus in fiction. At the time of Panthalassa there was Pangea, which seems more or less the same land area as we have now, quite a bit more than "a few islands". As I said, it's not a strong opinion. Daranios (talk) 10:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Fair enough. Let's see what TD thinks; I am fine with mellowing it down but like you, I think it would be good to preserve the term and a link to the concept, along the lines: the term is mentioned in sources, why can't we do this too? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:48, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, Daranios. Using "panthalassic" (in other words, "all-oceanic" but with Greek morphemes) as an adjective is a good idea for a compromise. I'll implement that. As for the authors, I'll clarify that I don't mind mentioning/linking them in the WP:LEAD per se, but I don't think the way it's currently done works. I'll try tinkering with it to see if I can come up with something. TompaDompa (talk) 20:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
I gave it a shot. Take a look and tell me what you think (or, you know, revert or edit further). TompaDompa (talk) 21:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
@TompaDompa Looks good, and if the panthalassic planet redirects to Ocean world rather than Panthalassa, that's arguably for the better too. Thank you for your help! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  1. ^ Example: I used https://sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/mercury to decide to include Adrift in the Unknown in the Mercury in fiction article, and then also cited https://sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/cook_william_wallace to be able to write about what the subject of the satire is.

Status query

TompaDompa, Piotrus, where does this review stand? It has been open for three months, and as best I can tell, the issues raised at that time are still being dealt with. If there's so much that needs to be done, the suggestion that this was nominated prematurely would seem to have merit. If this cannot be wrapped up in the next week or so, perhaps it should be closed. It can always be nominated again once all the issues have been dealt with, whenever that turns out to be. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I am working on this, but I know, super slowly. If this is an issue, I don't mind if this is failed and I'll renom this once I am done addressing the issues, which I do intend to do in the foreseeable future. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I should perhaps also clarify that yes, I am monitoring this page. I plan to go over the article in its entirety again once all my previous comments have been addressed, but I'll respond to a few things now as well:

  • Using the image in the WP:LEAD as an example of a pulp story featuring Venus is perfectly acceptable, and the caption should in that case note that Venus appeared in many such stories (SFE says "The early sf pulps made abundant use of Venusian scenarios.", so that's hardly WP:OR). The image placement is probably something we should revisit once the review is further along.
  • All the information in the sentence Early astronomers [...] a desert. is verified by the other sources, so citing Launius and Taylor & Grinspoon is superfluous (and the article should really be based on sources on Venus in fiction, not scientific articles on Venus itself),
  • The stuff about Arrhenius' speculations is still way excessive and needs to be condensed. Now that this source is cited, the references to Launius and Taylor & Grinspoon should be removed (again, base the article on sources on Venus in fiction rather than on scientific articles on Venus) and the current content rewritten based on that source to be a significantly briefer summary of Arrhenius' speculations and more focus on the impact on fictional depictions of Venus.
  • I don't think the image of the ruins in the jungle is appropriate. My understanding from the sources is that this would not be a typical representation of Venus in these works of fiction—that is to say, I don't get the impression that one would expect a work that depicts Venus as being covered in jungle to have ruins in that jungle (especially not as a prominent feature). It would seem to give the reader an incorrect impression of how Venus was depicted in these works. It might be possible to find an appropriate image with a jungle or swamp and dinosaurs or other prehistoric creatures as this is per the sources a fairly common representation of Venus, but if we can't find one the current image needs to go even if that means that the section doesn't have any images.
  • The sources that use the term panthalassa do not refer to the specific historical superocean that surrounded the supercontinent Pangaea, thus covering roughly 70% of Earth's surface. They use the term in the generic sense to refer to a planet-wide ocean, in this case one that covers the entire surface of Venus. This is made clear by this source and this source which both use the term, and the concept is also referred to without using the term in these sources: [8][9] The term panthalassa (lowercase p, as opposed to Panthalassa) is rather incidental here and we can simply explain what it means without using the term itself.
  • I know Rob Maslen is an academic, but WP:SPS says Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications., and I don't know that those criteria are met here? Maslen's area of expertise is fantasy, no? It's better not to cite a questionable source when we have definitely-reliable sources available. Venus being mostly oceanic in Last and First Men, which seems to be the main point here (the stuff about Last and First Men here is a bit overly detailed anyway), is verified by Stableford.

Piotrus, do you think you can share the entry from The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy that you received from WP:RX with me? It would be helpful in reviewing this article. TompaDompa (talk) 21:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@TompaDompa The good news is that yes, I have the Greenwood pdf on this computer, so if you send me an email I'll reply with the attachment. The slightly less good news is that I don't fully agree with regarding the content. In order:
  • LEAD: I am honestly not sure what you mean, i.e. if any action is required?
  • Regarding Launius and Taylor & Grinspoon, I don't like removing sources; even if they are redundant, they may be easier for some readers to access than the others. I don't think we've reached the point of WP:CITEBOMB, so I'd prefer to let those refs remain. In addition, having several sources for a claim ensures we are representing a more mainstream and DUE view, so I think it is actually a best practice to cite more than one source for a fact.
  • Arrhenius content has been pruneda already and I think what remains is relevant. If you really think it needs to be pruned further, please WP:BEBOLD and prune it more - I honestly don't know what to cut. WP:NOTPAPER, the article is not overly long, I really think we can leave it be.
  • I agree the image of dinesources in the jungle would be superior, but I don't think the image of ruins is confusing. We can clarify it in caption, which I just did: Artist's impression of ruins in an alien jungle, the latter a common background in many early stories of adventure on Venus. How's that?
  • the word panthalassa is not something most readers will be familiar with and a wikilink sees helpful for the context; I don't think the readers will be confused by thinking the link implies that Venus had the very same historical entity, just like linking to a jungle, which discusses Earth jungles, doesn't imply Venusian jungles are identical, etc.
  • re: Rob Maslen. If we look at this from an interdisciplinary perspective, just one level up, if he published about fantasy, then the step up to "expert in speculative fiction" is really not that big. If you think all the content is verified with other sources (which if they aren't added to the right sentences, please BEBOLD and add, given you have recently verified them, I assume), than just like with Taylor & Grinspoon, I am not opposed to them being removed but for redundancy sake my preference is to keep all sources. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you an email. WP:RX pointed me to this link to The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy on the Internet Archive which you may find useful for other articles and sent me the "Venus and Venusians" entry from Gary Westfahl's Science Fiction Literature through History: An Encyclopedia. I'll also note that The Visual Encyclopedia of Science Fiction (link on the Internet Archive) has some information that may be relevant on pages 81, 92, 93, 95, 128, and 163 (perhaps others as well, I only took a quick look). TompaDompa (talk) 12:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    The prose could use some additional copyediting, but is now within acceptable limits.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    The article goes into a bit much detail about related topics (mainly the history of planetary science relating to Venus) at times, but after the copyediting that has been done I find it to be within acceptable bounds. It is likewise a bit heavy on examples without details, but not disqualifyingly so.
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    All images are public domain, CC BY-SA 3.0, or CC BY-SA 4.0 (the last one being fine for media but not for text per WP:CFAQ).
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    I think this was nominated prematurely. There is much to be done before this can be listed as a WP:Good article. Update: This work has now been done.

TompaDompa (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@TompaDompa My apologies for the delay, I just finished the last GAR I had before this, and I'll start engaging with this article now. Thank you for holding this so long. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:13, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: I am working through the above list, albeit slowly. Too many other things have been coming up, both on and off wiki. But I intend to continue. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
The article now meets all the WP:Good article criteria. Well done! TompaDompa (talk) 17:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposed merger

Can't be merged with Venusians in my opinion, as the latter is much more specific. JMK (talk) 12:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

@JMK Can. And was done a while ago. Just saying for reference. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Venus with oceans

I've found File:Venus with conjectured oceans (4).png but the quality is not inspiring. The Ocean section could use a picture, but this... sigh. Ping User:TompaDompa. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

It's also utter WP:OR. Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:43, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Preparation for renomination at WP:FAC

Note: This was initially posted at User talk:Piotrus#Venus in fiction before being copied here. TompaDompa (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi! As you are probably aware, I have edited the article Venus in fiction a fair bit over the course of the last few months since the FAC closed in late October. I've tried to address the issues brought up by me and Espresso Addict in the FAC in preparation for renomination. I've reached out to Espresso Addict to ask them to take a look, but I see that their most recent edit was back in late November, so they might not reply in the near future. I was thinking that perhaps we could be co-nominators. What do you think? TompaDompa (talk) 15:29, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@TompaDompa Impressive progress, I certainly would support a renomination. Do let me know how can I be of assistance. Btw, I'd nitpick the super rare word filmatized, maybe reword this? Also, a quick glance shows we lost mentions of Cowboy Bebop and Pathfinders to Venus? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
I changed "filmatized" to "adapted to film". I couldn't find a good spot to include Cowboy Bebop and Pathfinders to Venus, but anime and television are at least represented in the article by Venus Wars and Tom Corbett, Space Cadet, respectively. TompaDompa (talk) 15:58, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
@TompaDompa See, that's the problem of restructuring that removed 'by media'. I'll think about how to restore the mention of these works; I think mentioning them is valuable to the reader. I'll also see what else went missing, I noticed the Venusian sidekick example (Tommy Tommorrow's) is gone too. I don't mind the restructuring, but the examples (information) should not be lost. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:03, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
I've tried to make the examples serve the analysis, rather than including them just because they exist. There are way more works featuring Venus than we can reasonably include without turning this into what is functionally a list of examples. I've re-added Lon Vurian as an example of a basically-human Venusian. TompaDompa (talk) 16:19, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Found a way to include Pathfinders to Venus. TompaDompa (talk) 16:43, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
I gave including Cowboy Bebop a shot. It's not ideal since Anime News Network is not a great source, but it should be reliable enough for basic plot details. Take a look and see what you think. TompaDompa (talk) 20:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, that's all great. Note that I believe that if a work, any work, is worth mentioning in any reliable reference work, in particular, one that is about Venus in fiction, I think it should be discussed in the article. Here are my other thoughts:
  • a mention of some of the most prominent authors, if not works, in the lead, would be good
  • general comment: WP:RED is good, but assuming all works are notable, even essays and short stories, I am unsure about.
  • I see you shortened the chronological listing of earliest works, most are mentioned later. I am not sure if this shortening is good - the earlier version collected in one place some of the earlierst works in the genre, which might be of interest to some readers. I refer to the second paragraph in 'Early depictions: exotic tropics' in the version linked below
  • works which were mentioned in this version but aren't in our current one:
    • Clifford D. Simak ("Hunger Death", 1938)
    • Campbell's "The Black Star Passes" (1930)
    • A. E. van Vogt's The World of Null-A (1949)
    • Simak's "Rim of the Deep" (1940)
    • Asimov's Lucky Starr and the Oceans of Venus (1954) is no longer mentioned in the Ocean... section, despite the obvious relevance of the title (it is mentioned elsewhere).
    • Bradury's "All Summer in a Day" (1954) was removed, and it even had some description of the story. If this is because it didn't mention jungle and swamps, this can be easily remedied by being moved to the paragraph about "A common assumption was that the Venusian clouds were made of water".
    • Heinlein's Between Planets was removed from the sentence about "Robert A. Heinlein portrayed Venusian swamps in several unrelated stories " (it is mentioned elsewhere in the article)
    • mention of Anderson's "The Big Rain" (1954) which revolves around an attempt to bring about rain on a desert Venus was removed from the Desert section (it is mentioned in the terraforming). Again, if a work is relevant here and there, I think it should be mentioned in both; with the first mention providing more detail and second, being just a mention. WP:NOTPAPER, however.
    • Robert Sheckley's "Prospector Planet" (1959) also gone from that section, not mentioned anywhere else
    • Dean McLaughlin's The Fury from Earth (1963) ditto
    • Bob Buckley's "Chimera" (1976) is gone entirely and Pearce and Bova's examples are removed from the list of examples of hard environment works where Chimera was present
    • example of Kuttner's Fury is no longer present in the terraforming section
    • removed example: "while Marvel Comic's Sub-Mariner defended Earth from an invasion by amphibious Venusians"
    • removed another example: The Green Lantern story "Summons from Space" (1959) feature the heroes protecting human-like inhabitants of Venus from the dinosaurs - which could totally fit in the place we discuss dinosaurs on Venus
    • removed "In addition to original comic plotlines, classic works such as Burroughs' stories featuring Carson Napier, the protagonist of the Pirates of Venus series, were published by DC Comics in the 1970s, and Dark Horse Comics in the 1990s." This could be mentioned somewhere in shortened version, where we discuss Burrough's stories, noting that they also received comic book adaptations (or this entire sentence could be copied to article about his works/series I guess).
    • you removed the mention of "Treatments described sometimes as more "cerebral" or "mainline" included", which served to show that there were "more serious" works in addition to the pulp sword-and-planet/planetary romance
    • this sentence was removed: "While individual visits tend to be peaceful, some authors have depicted large scale conflicts, including warfare, between Venusians and humans (or in some cases, Martians)" and only partially rewritten as "Visits like this are typically peaceful and for the enlightenment of humanity. Occasionally, Venusians come to Earth intent on conquering it, as in". I thought you like examples - why remove mention of warfare, including conflict with Mars?
    • gone is " Venusians invade Earth in Target Earth! (1954)", why? Totally could be another example for the invasion part, discussed above
    • last missing example: " a flight to Venus is also featured in Doomsday Machine (1972)."
  • you removed the sentence "While the earliest works about Venus tended to be written in French or English, science fiction writers from other countries also tackled this topic" although I am prepared to entertain that this was a bit ORish and probably represents my annoyance/bias on such topics being heavily anglo-centric... (I know, I know, we are limited to what is in the sources and these are biased in coverage)
PS. I suggest moving (copying) our discussion to Talk:Venus in fiction, so that future historians (:>) studying the development of this article can find it more easily... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:57, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
The copy-move has been done. I think that while including every work that appears in reliable reference works is at first glance an admirable ambition, it is not feasible without sacrificing overall article quality. There are simply way too many works that get mentioned by those sources (by my count, the sources currently cited in the article contain an additional 70–80 works that are not mentioned in the article at present). We would end up with an index of works rather than a prose article. For the same reason, I've tried to reduce redundancy by not mentioning the same work over and over again if there are other examples that work equally well. That way, we get a more diverse set of examples without bloating the article too much by creating an excessive WP:EXAMPLEFARM. As for some of the specific points you brought up:
  • I replaced Campbell's "The Black Star Passes" with "Solarite" since there was more to say about it. Both are included in The Black Star Passes.
  • The World of Null-A is still mentioned, but I moved it to the "Terraforming" section.
  • I removed "All Summer in a Day" because "Sources on the overarching topic really only cover one of these works to any significant degree." (the other one being "The Long Rain"; this one is just mentioned in passing by Dozois and Vaas). That being said, I re-added it.
  • "Prospector Planet" is now mentioned as "Prospector's Special". This was changed by somebody else, but a quick Google search seems to suggest that the latter is actually the correct title (the former does not even appear to be an alternative title).
  • Dozois' "mainline" explicitly just means "not planetary romance", and Gillett's "more cerebral" is a bit too "review-y" for my taste. I think devoting a paragraph to planetary romance depictions makes the point that it appeared in that genre among others just as well.
  • I found the "While individual visits tend to be peaceful [...]" passage too ORish since it was sourced to Bleiler's indices. I'm of the opinion that the indices should only be cited with WP:INTEXT attribution ("Bleiler lists examples such as [...]"). I did manage to cover the main points while citing a different source.
  • Fair enough about Target Earth. I re-added it.
  • I did indeed find the language thing too ORish. Regardless, I think interspersing examples is a better way to combat WP:Systemic bias in cases like this. Devoting a separate paragraph or section to the "non-standard" examples (whether in terms of language or medium) runs the risk of coming across as ghettoizing (for lack of a better term).
TompaDompa (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
@TompaDompa EXAMPLEFARM is an essay, WP:NOTPAPER is a policy, so I'll disagree with this. If article size becomes an issue, content can be split into subarticles and then shortened in the main article, but I don't think we are at that point yet. Given the requirement that FA-level articles should be comprehensive, I stand by my view that we should try to list every single example in the sources cited. Of course, considering some sources (Bleiler...), I can see major style issues, and I totally support trying to justify each and every example with some description/analysis. My solution is to treat catalogue-listings like Bleiler as too detailed to worry about, but if an example is given in another encylopedia-like treatment of the topic, I think we should add it here. I would not call the article not comprehensive enough at FA if some examples didn't make it, it's a minor point, but I do think that if we added something, it should not be removed. Eventually this article should list every example mentioned in other encyclopedias (not catalogues like Bleiler...), because the logic is - those other entries were written by experts, and they thought that story A by author Z is a good example, well, who are we do say "meh, pass on this one"? Hence, forgive me for using a strong term, but I do insist on restoring all examples, including repeating them in various sections if they have been used as examples of different themes we discuss. Again, I don't believe removing examples due to worry about EXAMPLEFARM can overrule NOTPAPER/comprehensive counterarguments, and in fact, removing some examples one things are "not important" can be argued to be an OR-ish/editorializing appproach. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:10, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
It's not an issue of article size but of writing quality; WP:FA-level articles are supposed to be well-written. If the article were hypothetically expanded to 10,000 words that would not be an issue in itself as long as the prose is strong, but if it's 90% titles of examples it would be a bad article. Sometimes, less is more. WP:NOTEVERYTHING is also policy: A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. That's not original research or editorializing, it's just encyclopedic writing. I can see the argument that if all the experts use a particular example we should probably include it, but one could equally well say that if we give equal weight to an example mentioned by one expert and one mentioned by all of them then we are giving the former undue weight by overemphasizing a WP:MINORASPECT. Likewise if we give equal weight to an example discussed in-depth and one name-checked. I could also see reusing examples for multiple sections being viewed as unduly emphasizing those works. This is not a black-and-white issue of course, it's a balancing act. TompaDompa (talk) 10:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
It indeed is. Which is why for me I draw the line at not insisting we use all examples, but I object to removal to the ones that have been added before. There is no reason to remove such content, particularly when we are talking about literally "a few" examples. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm all for expanding the article with quality content. A lack of available sources to write quality content that would fit this article is a major reason some of these examples were removed. Another important reason is that some aspects—the desert vision of Venus and appearances in comic books in particular—are only covered fairly briefly and by a minority of sources and I am wary of their potential overrepresentation in this article. TompaDompa (talk) 04:36, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
We can both agree that discussing things in depth, with sources, is superior. And we have both shown this is often possible. Let's focus on positives, check the newly expanded content on Simak I've added and feel free to split it/move it around. I'll see what else can be expanded. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
I've went through few more examples, I stopped now at Bob Buckley's "Chimera" (1976). I can't find much about it (it's just mentioned in passing in "Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia", p.549. I can't find the work discussed anywhere else, it's just a short story, and the author does not appear very notable (no entry in SFE). ISFDb entry for the record. Grudgingly, this seems like a minor work by a minor author, mentioned in passing in just one of our soruces, I think we can leave it out... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:33, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
The Simak paragraph is way excessive and out of WP:PROPORTION, bordering on WP:COATRACK. I'll see what I can do to address that. The article currently mentions three different works by Simak, which doesn't seem entirely necessary. TompaDompa (talk) 07:10, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
While I don't mind splitting the paragraph and moving the contents around, I object to the removal of any work. They are all important enough to be mentioned an encyclopedic treatment of Venus and have further discussion about them in other works. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:18, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Like I said, we have well over 60 additional works that are mentioned in our sources but not included in the article. It is completely unreasonable to expect to include all of them, and trying to do so would be detrimental to the overall article quality. At some point we have to "kill our darlings", as it were. It's better to try to find the best examples than to try (and inevitably fail) to use all of them. TompaDompa (talk) 12:32, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Honestly, this may require a WP:3O or an WP:RFC], as I disagree per NOTPAPER etc. Now, I don't intend to add any new examples right now, but I am certainly not opposed to this (and as before, I object to removal of the ones that have been added in the past, except BB's "Chimera". However, as currently I don't think anything has been removed (please correct me if I am wrong, since you are the one doing the occasional removals), I am fine with the article as it stands. I'd also ask you to clearly note in the edit summary if you remove any work. TIA. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:43, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Image map

Sorry for my sloppy edit, forgeting to reinsert the image map at different part, wasnt my intention. Nsae Comp (talk) 05:27, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I moved it now to the see also section since it is for navigating to fiction of the other planets. Nsae Comp (talk) 20:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
That is not its only purpose, as the caption (Some early depictions of Venus in fiction were part of tours of the Solar System. [...]) is meant to show. It serves the purpose of putting Venus in the broader context of Solar System bodies in fiction, mainly in terms of appearing in "planetary tours" but also with Mars in fiction as a point of comparison (which the paragraph it appeared next to goes into some detail about). I have put it back. TompaDompa (talk) 22:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Chapter names

Hi, I still dont feel comfortable with the chapter names. Mainly because it tries to draw a line betweem two historical distinct eras of depiction, but then has somewhat contradicting sub-chapters. So I would suggest just to take the characterizing elements of the headline away and just leave "early depiction"/"later depiction" (or pre/post space age, or something like that). This confines less the spectrum of the times described.

That said I must say this has all been done with lots of love and effort. Awesome work!

So I hope I can gove some constructive input. Nsae Comp (talk) 20:32, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by somewhat contradicting sub-chapters, but I think plain "Early depictions"/"Later depictions" could work, so let's try that. TompaDompa (talk) 22:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Great. PS: contradicting since e.g. tropical has desert and ocean, which both do not need to be tropical. Nsae Comp (talk) 23:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Re: this headings change. I think the previous name were more interesting to the reader. We could change tropics to environment, perhaps? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:57, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
If we are to have some kind of additional information in the headings, I'd be more inclined to go with something like "habitable". That's really the key thing that distinguishes the early depictions from the later ones. TompaDompa (talk) 10:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
"Early depictions: Exotic and habitable" vs "Later depictions: extreme inhospitality"? IIRC my old subheading was "hostile inferno", I still think it sounds better. Our headings don't always have to be super dry. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:28, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't know about "exotic and habitable", it sounds kind of weird to me. I think the point above about "tropics" is a fair one. I don't mind "hostile inferno". TompaDompa (talk) 10:34, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
I understand that you want it more catchy, but the main change/turn was the knowledge gained about the actual environment through spaceflight. That is what these two chapters do for me. I personally would call them "before/after spaceflight" and leave out the traping specification, especially since it narrows the chapter. But you could then have, like it allready is sub-chapters that are called after the focus of a group of fiction which focus on the exotic but habitable vision of Venus VS later stories that focus on the infernal ground level environment or the greenhouse effects, or also a sub-chapter about stories which focus on the lofty cloud life/environments, etc. (which would be contradictive to me if they are under a chapter that is called inhospital inferno, because that is just not true, stories set in the clouds are stories in environments more friendly than on any other planet and deteched from thw rightly infernal environment below). Nsae Comp (talk) 18:44, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Venus_in_fiction/Archive_1&oldid=1211621842"