Talk:Extrasolar planets in fiction

Wolf 359 (CN Leonis)

Mentioned several times in Star Trek,
Example:
Star Trek Voyager S05E07 Infinite Regress. Minute: 25:40

i´ve heard this several times in Star Trek, and maybe also in Alien movies..
maybe also in the movie: Passengers (2016)
maybe in Prometheus (2012)
a Wolf asteroid is named in the movie: Deep Impact (1998)
with similar story as the actual Wolf 369 history, Discovered by astronomer called Dr.Wolf
maybe also mentioned in: The Arrival (1996)
maybe also in: Contact (1997)

Star Control II

Nothing from Star Control II is included here even though Rigel, Delta Pavonis, Alpha Centauri feature in the game 76.10.167.187 (talk) 01:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Spectral Type

It may be worthwhile to mention to spectral types of the listed stars with or under thir names as this would tell those readers who understand a bit of science a lot about those systems at a glance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.43.180 (talk) 21:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Navi

Should be added since used in Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time and others 174.30.211.58 (talk) 01:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC) soupy

Merope

Should be added since used in Harry Potter: Half-Blood Prince 174.30.211.58 (talk) 01:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)soupy

Used as a character's name. This is not an appearance of the star itself. 2.25.142.67 (talk) 18:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Alphabetised the list

I found it inconvenient that you had to look two places to see if a star had details, so I merged them. Improved the description as well. --GwydionM 15:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Recent changes

I made the following changes to the list:

1. Standardized entries so that they all begin with title, date (where available), genre, by author (or company), followed by the description.
2. This list should only contain references to the actual stars, so I moved references to people, places, or things that only shared the name of a star to the list Star names in popular culture.
3. Deleted some links that led to promotional or advertising material.
4. Removed references that are not fiction-related, e.g., to references to stars in UFOlogy.
5. Removed references that had no source other than "some fans say...".
6. Added the material from the "Procyon in fiction" article, because it was short enough to fit on this list and too short to justify its existence as an independent article.

RandomCritic 23:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Further added material from "Arcturus in fiction", which was even shorter than "Procyon in fiction". RandomCritic 21:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

I removed this addition, for a couple of reasons:

• AdventureQuest (2005-200_) online computer role-playing game by Artix Entertainment. There have been many instances to to Zeta Reticuli in the first year of the Destroyer Saga. These were leaked during the Into The Future war, where Adventurers and Guardians fought Makkisar, who created mutated clones of our largest foe to date, Carnax, at a whopping 275 million HP

1. Because I don't know what it means (though it seems to contain a lot of extraneous information).
2. Because it's unverified: Zeta Reticuli isn't mentioned anywhere in the AdventureQuest article, nor in connection with AdventureQuest elsewhere on the web.

Until this information becomes verifiable, it doesn't belong in this list. RandomCritic 14:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

TOC

Would {{tocright}} be less intrusive than {{tocleft}}? - ∅ (∅), 10:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's see! RandomCritic 15:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The Galilean Satellites

There's a band named Rosetta. Their first album is The Galilean Satellites. The main theme in their lyrics is Europa, the Jupiter Moon, and several songs are named after stars and moons eg: Ross 128, Deneb, Beta Aquilae, etc. Thought it might enrich the article a tiny bit. Here's the link [[1]]

--I1100a 21:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The star in _The Arrival_

I think the aliens' home star in The Arrival in Wolf 336, not 424. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.20 (talk) 01:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's right. Only problem is, Wolf 336 doesn't actually exist -- so it doesn't belong in this list at all. RandomCritic (talk) 02:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Barnard's Star

Cherryh uses Barnard's star in one of her books, but I'm not sure which one. Could some one add it in if they know it, or I will when I can find the reference.--C.J. (talk • contribs) 23:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Barnard's Star is also the name of a weapon in the video game "Diablo II". Not sure if that counts as fiction for the purposes of this article though... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.89.215.42 (talk) 21:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Arcturus

Could also have been referenced in Starcraft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.229.188 (talk) 15:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Eta Cassiopeia (Achird)

I won't post it in the main article under the original content rules, but a story called "Payback" in Analog Science Fiction and Fact, July-August 2009, uses Achird as the seat of a civilization that attacks our solar system with an interstellar ramjet starkiller. The author is named Tom Ligon. Tomligon (talk) 03:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Procyon

Was the original destination for the generation ship in Non-Stop by Brian W. Aldiss —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.107.122 (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

107 Piscium

Contact with Chaos -- Micheal Williamson (Baen Books) 69.23.124.142 (talk) 08:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The Alien Encounters

There was an old B Movie I saw on TV back in the late 70s/early 80s, I think it was the one to do with Native American or "Alien" mummies and some young guy in a wheelchair who was possessed by some intelligence. Anyway, the alien intelligences in this cheesy film were said to come from Bernard's Star. I have no idea what it was, probably not even in IMDB since it was one of those silly little Saturday Afternoon films they show sometimes. EDIT: I just found it, it was called "The Alien Encounters" from 1979. Mind boggilingly dull and silly but totally watchable to a 10 year old boy (me) who was stuck inside in rainy Oregon :-)Yanqui9 (talk) 22:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The movie Cocoon does not mention Antares

In fact, the aliens refer to themselves as Antareans and they say they come from a planet called Antarea. SourceDevil Master (talk) 16:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Fomalhaut

It's frequently mentioned in S. P. Somtow's "Mallworld", IIRC usually in reference to an animal called a "gaboochi" which is presumably from a planet orbiting that star. I've no idea where my copy of the book is or I'd look it up to be certain. Over 200 hits on google for gaboochi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.232.94.33 (talk) 10:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

In Forever War, the battle mentioned in the article happened on a regular planet in the Eplison Aurigae star system, not Formalhaut. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.200.91.99 (talk) 10:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

40 Eridani

In the OMNI Book Astropilots by Laura J. Mixon the main male character Jason Stiletto and his friend Sssrei are both from 40 Eridani II. Jason is from the colony world around 40 Eridani II, and Sssrei is a native of that world.

I don't know if info should go into this section or another section. Feel free to move or add it. ([email protected]) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.177.226.79 (talk) 09:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Changes on 01/08/2011

I added entries for Arcturus (Book of Dreams), Beta Aquarii (Rhialto), Capella (Emphyrio), Gamma Orionis (Blade Runner, Babel-17), Phi Orionis (Space Opera).

I attempted to put the added books in the correct chronological "spot" under each star, but for some stars there are so many undated existing entries that I could not be sure I got it exactly right.

I also fixed the formatting of several existing starnames to fit the convention <linked name> (<unlinked name in parentheses>). I fixed one broken line.OperaJoeGreen (talk) 07:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

List Cleanup Project

Background of the Project

In February of 2007 RandomCritic made the following changes to the list:

1. Standardized entries so that they all begin with title, date (where available), genre, by author (or company), followed by the description.
2. ...

It's been four years since then, and many - perhaps most - of the entries no longer conform to this standard. In particular, many entries lack a date.

Capella Prototype

I decided to see if it was practical to clean up the sub-entries under Capella (Alpha Aurigae). In fact it was possible to use the links provided in each one of the sub-entries to get a date from the relevant Wikipedia articles.

Using this information, I:

1. Re-ordered the information in every sub-entry to conform to RandomCritic's standard above.
2. De-bracketed links to articles that no longer exist.
3. Bracketed links to plaintext items where an article now exists.
4. Fixed entries where contributors had mistakenly used double-quotes instead of paired single quotes for italics.
5. Made all planet names boldface.
6. Improved the flow of some descriptions without altering the meaning.
7. Added a date to every sub-entry. After this, I reordered the sub-entries to chronological order. I think there is value to be gained by showing the historical progression of references to a star/planetary system.

You see the result on the article page.

Cleanup Project Plan

Continue the cleanup process demonstrated on the Capella prototype with other stars, starting at the top of the star list. This will probably take some time (I do have a day job!). Comments welcome. OperaJoeGreen (talk) 21:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for Clarification

This article is flagged as

    This article needs additional citations for verification.

What type of citations are desired?

It seems to me that most of the entries in this list are self-verifying. For example, to verify the information about Jack Vance's Emphyrio:

• For the Title, Date, Genre, and Author, click on the Emphyrio link to go to the Wikipedia article on that novel, where this information is all given.
• For the Description, sometimes the given links verify that too, via Wikipedia articles. Sometimes, however, this is not the case. Should ISBN or other information and the location in the work be given in these cases?

OperaJoeGreen (talk) 21:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Move from Stars and planetary systems in fiction to Planetary systems in fiction

I doubt it had been a good idea to move the article to Planetary systems in fiction. There are also depicted stars in fiction without planetary systems. I have just inserted such an example into the article Alpha Centauri in fiction. In this case—in Edmund Cooper`s Seed of Light—, a crew of astronauts hopes over years to find planets around Alpha Centauri and is then disappointed when they see that the star does not possess a planetary system. That is a decisive event in the novel, and should be counted worthwhile being described in Wikipedia due to the great importance of Seed of Light in science fiction (Seed of Light is counted Cooper`s possibly best novel—see Hans Joachim Alpers et al: Reclams Science Fiction Führer. Reclam, Stuttgart 1982, p.106). The article Alpha Centauri in fiction is, at the moment, in the table of contents of the article Planetary systems in fiction so that there arises a clear contradiction. I assume there will also be many other, similar cases. I don`t think it would be very useful to set up a new, separate article on Stars [without planetary systems] in fiction. The user who has moved the article to Planetary systems in fiction has also not yet adapted all double links, for example not that from Stars in fiction nor that from Procyon in fiction. I therefore plead the move should be reverted. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 00:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Moving an article to a different catchword can, of course, be justified. In this case, I do not see sufficient reason for the move that has been undertaken, and even count this harmful. The user who has moved the article has not motivated this. I, therefore, would like to announce that I am going to revert the move, should there not be given convincing reasons for it within two weeks. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 21:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Hans that the article should be reverted to Stars and ... I have been working on a "Cleanup project" for this article for a while now, and am quite familiar with the contents — at least through Arcturus as of this writing. In the first quarter of the article (through Arcturus) I count (conservatively) the following: 12 cases where a star is referenced solely as the home of an alien race (planets can be inferred but are never explicitly mentioned); 8 cases where a star is mentioned solely as a location in space (for example, as the source of radio communications, or the destination of a failed interstellar mission); 1 case (Antares in Frotier Elite) where a star is described explicitly as a location in space that has no planets; and 3 cases where a star is described as being orbited by a deep-space station, but not planets. It is clear to me that restricting the article title to "Planetary Systems" only is an oversimplification and inaccurate. OperaJoeGreen (talk) 18:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

As a historical note, this article used to be called "Star systems in fiction" -- with the intent of including both references to the stars themselves and to any planets they might have -- but it was changed due to the concern that it might be interpreted as referring to only those systems which contain multiple stars. The problem with "planetary system" is, of course, that it seems to exclude the stars themselves. The intended terminology is one that would, of course, refer to extrasolar analogues of the Solar system, including both the central star or stars, and any accompanying planets. I think that "star system" or "stellar system" is the best terminology for that meaning, and it used to be the ordinary one in fiction (next to "solar system" used generically) but WP has endorsed the usage of "star system" to refer to multiple stars. Failing that, I think "extrasolar system" might be used (i.e., Extrasolar systems in fiction). It is rather odd that no agreed-on terminology for "extrasolar planetary system + star" exists, analogous to "solar system", despite such objects being now commonly observed. RandomCritic (talk) 00:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

One could fear that "Stars and planetary systems in fiction" might exclude star systems (multiple stars). But the very plural "Stars" already includes that, doesn`t it? Regarding the proposal "Extrasolar systems in fiction": would that not be a little unclear, because one could misunderstand it as also including systems of galaxies? --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 16:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I`d like to add that "Extrasolar systems in fiction" would, again, exclude stars which have no system at all. This might be rare throughout the universe, but is, obviously, quite common throughout literature (a big part of which has been created, when there weren`t yet any extrasolar planetary systems known). To be absolutely correct, one could also say "Stars and extrasolar planetary systems in fiction". But then, one would, again, get the problem that there might occur some lonely comets, asteroids, and so on. The problem is to get a catchword that, practically, hits the subject of the article and, moreover, allows to include certain special cases without palatable inexactitudes. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

After all the above discussion, it still seems like "Stars and planetary systems in fiction" might well be the best title for this article. Another point: The article Lists of stars#Other star listings contains a link to "Stars and planetary systems in fiction." While that link properly re-directs here, it seems that a reader interested in various lists of stars would expect "stars" in the title of an interesting further article. OperaJoeGreen (talk) 07:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Correct. "Planetary systems in fiction" simply does not hit the subject of the article. Regarding the smaller, and bigger, astronomical objects that I mentioned: There are own articles on Asteroids in fiction, Nebulae in fiction, and Comets in fiction. These can easily be found on Category:Astronomical locations in fiction.

I`d say it would not be a problem to list a page Stars and planetary systems in fiction in Category:Planetary systems in fiction. In this category, there are not yet many—to be exact: not yet any—real extrasolar planetary systems that would already have been reviewed by authors of fiction. There are, so far, only the three pages Planetary systems in fiction, Solar System in fiction, and the Leigh Brackett Solar System. I`m not sure if this latter should really be listed, there, because this fictitious system seems very widely to be our usual Solar System, which have been added to certain fictitious traits. That might, at the end, not be anything different than what any other author of fiction might do with our usual Solar System so that the page would probably rather only belong into Category:Solar System in fiction, where it is, actually, already listed. To hint to the special difficulties of this case, I`d like to cite from the beginning of the article:

The Leigh Brackett Solar System is a fictional analogue to the real-world Solar System in which a majority of the planetary romances of Leigh Brackett take place. Although Brackett's stories do not form a series with a consistent chronology and causally-connected incidents, more than half of them are recognizably set in the same universe: a Solar System of the near future, with space travel and distinctive alien and human cultures on Mercury, Venus, Mars, the Asteroids, and the moons of Jupiter and Saturn. The stories of the Brackett Universe are bound together by shared terminology, place-names, "facts" about biology and culture, and occasionally shared characters. For instance, Brackett's Mercury is a nightmare world of extremes, where powerful storms rack a narrow habitable twilight belt; her Venus is a place where the liha-trees grow in the swamps around embattled outworld cities; and Mars is a place where you can drink thil at Madame Kan's in Jekkara of the Low Canals, or wander among barbarian warriors in the northern Drylands of Kesh and Shun.

--Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 09:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I have just realized that there is the great Category:Fictional planetary systems, and put the Leigh Brackett Solar System page into it.

The Leigh Brackett Solar System page is as well in Category:Solar System in fiction as in Category:Planetary systems in fiction. I`d say the redundancy should not be a problem, because different users of the Wikipedia might approach the Leigh Brackett Solar System page either from a search among planetary systems and how they have been dealt with in fiction, or from a search for works of fiction dealing with the Solar System.

In Category:Fictional planetary systems, there have, so far, been no pages at all, apart from Planets in science fiction, which, for sure, belongs there. I am now wondering how far one should add novels etc. to this category which deal with merely fictional planetary systems of real stars. That would, for sure, not be a problem just because such fictional systems should orbit stars that really exist, in all the cases of systems that have been thought out before there have, really, been discovered extrasolar planetary systems, since 1990: the likelihood that such a fictional system should, coincidentally, look just like a system that has, later, really been discovered, or could still be discovered, in the future, around the respective star is minimal. I only have doubts adding articles on works of fiction to Category:Fictional planetary systems, because these articles deal with the artworks as a whole and not only with the fictional planetary systems described in the artworks. That is, but, probably no problem, is it?! --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 10:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Editing an other page, I have just found that it is impossible to revert an edit after other edits have been made, in the meanwhile. I am not an administrator and can, therefore, not delete the current redirect page with the catchword Stars and planetary systems in fiction. As long as this redirect page exists, one cannot move any other article, to that catchword. It is also not possible just to paste the text of the present page into that redirect page, because one would lose the history of the page since the move to the current catchword, thus. Although I still would like to wait a little to let speak everybody who might be interested in the issue, I`d, therefore, like to ask, already now, if anybody here was an administrator or knew how one could proceed, here. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 10:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Hans, it appears that the title of this article is again "Stars and planetary systems in fiction." I'm not sure if you did this - you seem to be saying above that you are technically unable. However, it is done. I do believe this is the best outcome. I am satisfied. Thanks. OperaJoeGreen (talk) 06:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

From the View history tab I see that the change was made by RandomCritic. Thank you. OperaJoeGreen (talk) 21:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

I would like to draw readers' attention to the ongoing discussion of a proposal to delete a large number of articles similar to this one, at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aldebaran_in_fiction. RandomCritic (talk) 13:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I have made a somewhat lengthy contribution to the discussion cited by RandomCritic. OperaJoeGreen (talk) 18:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup project complete

I have completed the cleanup project for this article (see the details in the next section).

There are a number of stars in this list (Aldebaran is the first one of them) that send the reader to independent articles. These are stars that have too many fictional references to fit conveniently into the main list. The "child" articles (Aldebaran in fiction, etc.) all need the same kind of cleanup as the "parent" article (Stars and planetary systems in fiction).

Having finished the main list, I will next proceed to extend the cleanup project to:

Aldebaran (Completed on 6-3-2011)

Alpha Centauri (in work)

Altair (not done)

Betelgeuse (not done)

Deneb (not done)

Epsilon Eridani (not done)

Rigel (not done)

Sirius (not done)

Tau Ceti (not done)

Vega (not done)

Watch the ten stars above for a continuing record of my progress in cleaning up the child articles. OperaJoeGreen (talk) 15:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Keeping it clean: Standards and formatting for adding items to this list

The general format for items in this list is:

Title (date), genre by author or company, followed by the description.

1. Title The title should be italic for stand-alone works, and roman face with quotes for smaller works within a larger stand-alone work (for example, short stories in a book, or episodes of a television series). The title of a work can almost always be informatively wikilinked to some other Wikipedia article, ideally an article dedicated wholly to the work. Even if it does not have its own article, there is often a bibliography or other list section in the author's article that contains references to the work.
2. Date You should always be able to find a date for your item. The date, in parentheses, follows the title without other punctuation, and it is always followed by a comma. Under each star, all items should be in chronological order. Dates can be single years (1934), or spans (1934-1936), or open-ended (1934- ). For chronological ordering using the dates in this example, 1934 would precede 1934-1936, which in turn would precede 1934-. For items having the same date, I have not applied any particular ordering rule.
3. Genre There are a number of possible genres — see the list for examples. It's best to be simple here. For example, a certain game is referred to in its own article as "a critically acclaimed science fiction computer game." For this list, it's enough to refer to it just as a "computer game."
4. Author This can be "written by" (for print media), "developed by" (for games), or "directed by" (for films), to name a few possibilities. For print media, "by" is enough. Almost all authors, developers, directors, and so on can be wikilinked to their own articles.
5. Description Be concise, and make only claims that can be verified, either by wikilinks to articles in good standing, or by citations in the Reference list. Include a physical description of the planet if possible, and tell why it is relevant to the story. Star names in the description are normal face; spaceship names are italic; planet names, when available, are boldface. Roman numerals may be used if the position of a planet in its system is known: For example, the third planet of Canopus (i.e. Dune) is Canopus III.

Examples

The proper form of items is efficiently explained by examples. Several types follow.

Books

• Mission of Gravity (1953), novel by Hal Clement. The binary 61 Cygni star system is home to the supermassive planet Mesklin, which rotates rapidly and is highly oblate, with a gravity of 3 g at the equator and 700 g at the poles. A human explorer lands at the equator and ... [3 citations attached]

Films

• Alien (1979), film written by Dan O'Bannon et al and directed by Ridley Scott. The spaceship Nostromo receives a mysterious transmission from a nearby planetoid. It sends an expedition to the surface where they find a derelict alien spacecraft. The worldlet is named Acheron (Alien) and LV-426 (Aliens, 1986); in both cases it is located in the ζ² Reticuli system ... [citation attached]

Games

• 2300 AD (1986), role-playing game designed by the Game Designers' Workshop. Montana (Spanish: Montaña) a habitable garden world, is the second planet of o² Eridani (omicron two), and it houses the joint Argentinan-Mexican colony of Montana. While Argentina and Mexico originally placed two separate colonies within cooperating distance of each other, the distinctions have long since vanished ...

Short stories and television episodes

• "The Soft Weapon" (1967), Known Space short story by Larry Niven published in the collection Neutron Star (1968). Two humans and their Puppeteer companion have possession of a Slaver stasis box. They are ambushed on a planet of the Beta Lyrae system by Kzin pirates, who sequester the box only to discover that it is actually of Tnuctip provenance. It contains a weapon that can morph into several forms. Taking advantage of this, the trio trick the Kzinti and escape with the weapon ... [2 citations attached]
• "The Slaver Weapon" (1973), episode of Star Trek: The Animated Series written by Larry Niven, as part of the film and television franchise originated by Gene Roddenberry. In this version of the Slaver story set on an ice planet orbiting Beta Lyrae, the trio of spacefarers comprises Mr. Spock, Uhura, and Sulu. The Tnuctip weapon self destructs and kills the Kzin pirates (compare Sheliak: "The Soft Weapon" above). Mr. Spock has described Beta Lyrae as "one of the rare spectacles of the galaxy," ... [2 citations attached]

Citations

Where possible, use citations to substantiate your item. Primary references to the work itself, including page numbers for books, can facilitate verification of assertions you make. Secondary references (eg critical analyses for print and film, review sites for games, and/or Wikis such as "Memory Alpha" for Star Trek and "Halopedia" for Halo) that discuss or analyze the work help establish the "notability" of your item (that is, help show that it is not trivial). When you create citations, do not attempt to compose them yourself. Learn about and use the "Cite book", "Cite news", and "Cite web" templates that are available to editors.

Trivial items

I have removed a number of trivial items from this list. For example, under the star Beta Hydri I removed the item:

• A Canticle for Leibowitz, (1960), novel by Walter M. Miller, Jr.. A planet of Beta Hydri is colonized by humanity and is mentioned briefly in the last part of the novel, "Fiat Voluntas Tua," chapter 26.

This is a shame, really. The book is a science fiction classic, and the location of the planetary reference is fairly well documented. But the story of the novel takes place wholly on the Earth. Nobody is going to Beta Hydri, nobody is from Beta Hydri, none of the action takes place on Beta Hydri. If a planet is only mentioned in a work, or appears only briefly without a real part to play in the work, that's not substantial enough for this list. Avoid trivial items!

Thanks everybody for your help in keeping this list healthy!

OperaJoeGreen (talk) 16:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Forbidden Planet

In the 1950s film "Forbidden planet", starring Walter Pigeon, Lesley Neilson, Anne Francis and Robby the Robot, the action took place on the planet Altair 4, presumably a planet revoving round the star Altair.AT Kunene (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It does indeed! Note that certain stars are so often mentioned in works of science fiction that they were split off from this main article and given articles of their own. You will find a discussion of Forbidden Planet in the article Altair in fiction.

OperaJoeGreen (talk) 23:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Proxima Centauri was moved to a separate article

Mlindroo moved the Proxima Centauri items out of this article to a separate article of their own, as has been done in the past with other stars that accumulated an excess of items. Those other stars, with their current numbers of items, are:

• Aldebaran (30)
• Alpha Centauri (44)
• Altair (29)
• Betelgeuse (29)
• Deneb (27)
• Epsilon Eridani (34)
• Rigel (38)
• Sirius (45)
• Tau Ceti (42)
• Vega (36)

RandomCritic did some of the early organizing of this article. My guess is that his criterion for moving stars out to their own articles was 25 items or more.

Proxima Centauri currently has 17 items. That's greater than average, but not yet enough to merit its own article. It is not clear why Proxima Centauri attracted Mlindroo's attention in this way. Arcturus (18), Barnard's Star (18), Fomalhaut (23)(!), and Procyon (18) all have more items. And no! I'm not suggesting that they be moved out to their own articles!

I'd like to propose that we formalize the "25-and-out" rule. In line with this, unless there are strong arguments to the contrary, in two days I will revert the Proxima Centauri change and bring those items back into this article.

Please tell me your opinion!

OperaJoeGreen (talk) 06:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Sigma Draconis

The IP edit 2013 August 27 to add the Outpost reference (the order of references appears to be chronological, so I put it in the proper place) was me. My login didn't take for some reason. Featherwinglove (talk) 07:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Overzealous Star Trek Accreditation

Is it really necessary for every mention of Star Trek to include the line "as part of the film, television, and print franchise originated by Gene Roddenberry?" It gets fairly distracting, especially since the other entries don't list such accreditation, and it really reads like the whole thing was combed over and rewritten by an overzealous copyright lawyer for the Roddenberry estate or something. RyokoMocha (talk) 03:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any need for this at all. I would support taking it out — possibly retaining the very first mention (for 40 Eridani). — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 17:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed all but the first mention of Gene Roddenberry's ties to the Star Trek franchise (see this edit). — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Gliese 754

Gliese 754 is NOT the same system as HD 36395/Wolf 1453; the Gliese listing of HD 36395/Wolf 1453 is Gliese 205! Could someone please edit the particular section accordingly? http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/simbad/sim-id?Ident=Wolf_1453 Wackelkopp (talk) 13:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, did it myself. Wackelkopp (talk) 13:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

"Northern Celestial Hemisphere" not equivalent to "Northern Sky"

Added clarifying link to the section on the novel "Justine" because the brightest star in the Northern or Southern sky is Sirius, whereas Arcturus is only the brightest star in the Northern Celestial Hemisphere. See those articles for further information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:985:C100:1BFD:5D10:6482:D739:37D4 (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

You're using your own definition of northern sky. As you can see, Wikipedia (not a reliable source!) regards "northern sky" as exactly equivalent to northern celestial hemisphere. I could show you many other usages, for example to mean only the circumpolar constellations for "mid-northern" latitudes. The edit is fine, it adds a link and is less ambiguous. Lithopsian (talk) 16:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Liu's "3-Body Problem" trilogy missing?

Liu's "3-Body Problem" trilogy seems to be missing from the list, in spite of Trisolaris being an obvious reference to the Centauri system. Perhaps some people argued that the 3 stars of Trisolaris orbit each other chaotically, whereas the Centauri system is stable, with the two stars in Alpha Centuri orbiting each other closely and Proxima orbiting the pair from afar? I'm just speculating on the reasons for not including it. If my guess is right, I would argue that scientific inconsistency in fiction is nothing new, and the fact that in the novel this system of three stars is said to be the nearest system to our Solar System pretty much eliminates any doubts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.129.51.184 (talk) 16:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

If someone can find a reliable source linking the two, then fine. Otherwise it sounds like original research to me. -- Beardo (talk) 02:04, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

In Chapter 23 (page 273 of the Tor Mass Market paperback translated by Ken Liu) it says (referring to an extraterrestrial signal) "In could only have come from the closest extra-solar stellar system: Alpha Centauri" and the associated footnote discusses the binary star system and also Proxima Centauri. The substantiates the relationship. Nexus501 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:41, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

People

In the Arcturus section, there are several entries which are people with no obvious connection to the star except for the name. Similarly in Polaris, there are several people stated as named after the star - is that enough for inclusion ? -- Beardo (talk) 02:02, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Recent large-scale removals

Recently TompaDompa (talk · contribs) has gone through and removed many items. While I am sure they are well-intentioned, I am dubious about the rationale behind many of these deletions. While I will hold off on blanket reverting their removals, I am concerned that legitimate content has been removed for spurious reasons. There are several reasons for this concern:

1. A quick survey of these edits finds many instances of content removed with the edit summary "unsourced" when the real issue is an improperly formatted or incomplete reference. For example, in this edit, a paragraph about a Star Trek episode is removed with this edit summary, but the work itself can be considered the source.
2. WP:V states that, while material lacking a reliable source may be removed, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. Given that much of the material in question had gone unchallenged before TompaDompa's edits, a sudden and substantive removal of content without providing sufficient time to provide citations is a less than desirable course of action. Citation tags (either inline or at the top of the article) would be a better choice.
3. Amid all the edits, there is no apparent effort to seek out corroborating sources or correct inadequate citation, which WP:PRESERVE prompts editors to do.
4. Content with adequate citations is removed with a reference to MOS:POPCULT, but the rationale for what stays and goes under this standard seems spurious (for example, why is the reference to Dune removed in this edit, but preserved in the section on Canopus). Moreover, that MOS guide is specifically about "in popular culture" sections of non-popular culture related articles, so I'm not sure if it is even relevant to this article. Even if we were to use it as a guide here, we must consider that Consensus at the article level can determine whether particular references which meet this criteria should be included. We don't have a consensus to remove this content. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 22:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe there is cause to remove much of this content, but we should get a consensus to do so first. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 22:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I'll clarify some things and respond to some others.

Of course the works themselves are WP:Primary sources, and I suppose one could consider entries with no references to be implicitly sourced to the works themselves, but that's rather a moot point since entries need secondary (or tertiary) sources. Entries without any sources and entries that are entirely reliant on primary sources are equivalent in that regard—they are not properly sourced. That's also the reason I removed the 36 Ophiuchi entry about Dune but not the Canopus one (until later, that is): the former only cited the primary source and was consequently self-evidently not properly sourced whereas the latter cited The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction as well and that entry could therefore have had MOS:POPCULT-compliant sourcing (it didn't, but I couldn't know that for sure until I looked into what the cited The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction entry said).

I did actually look for sources, although I didn't look for sources about the entries but rather sources about the overarching topic: Stars and planetary systems in fiction. That's the same thing I have done for several similar articles that I have converted from deletion-candidate lists to proper prose articles, e.g. Supernovae in fiction and Neptune in fiction. Looking for sources that corroborate entries—when what we need is sources that provide analysis about the overarching topic—would be going about it backwards, if you ask me.

I think your reading of MOS:POPCULT is backwards. Consensus at the article level can determine whether particular references which meet this criteria should be included. doesn't mean that consensus can determine that something that doesn't meet these requirements should be included in spite of that, it means that consensus can determine that something that does meet these requirements should be excluded anyway. As the preceding sentence says, Note that this sourcing requirement is a minimum threshold for inclusion of cultural references. I also think it's self-evident that MOS:POPCULT applies to stand-alone X in fiction/popular culture/whatever articles in the same way it applies to such sections. Surely you're not suggesting that we should encourage editors to fork such sections into separate articles in order to circumvent the sourcing requirements? That would to my eye be rather egregious WP:Wikilawyering.

Finally, I put it to you that we already have consensus for removing these entries that lack MOS:POPCULT-compliant sourcing. That's because the current phrasing of MOS:POPCULT is itself the result of rather lengthy discussion. Not only that, there is also quite a bit of precedent inasmuch as quite a few of these "X in fiction/popular culture/whatever" lists have been brought to WP:AfD recently(-ish) with the same outcome: pure TV Tropes-style lists that enumerate every time X is featured in fiction/popular culture/whatever being rejected in favour of rewriting the articles in prose form based on proper secondary/tertiary sources. See e.g. WP:Articles for deletion/Far future in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Eco-terrorism in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Earth in science fiction (2nd nomination), WP:Articles for deletion/Space stations and habitats in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Supernovae in fiction, and WP:Articles for deletion/Neptune in fiction. TompaDompa (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for responding and clarifying your thought process. The focus here, it seems, should be on the content you have removed regarding "entries" (for lack of a better term), which is what I was referring to when I brought up WP:PRESERVE and your apparent lack of effort in attempting to corroborate or properly source material that you removed.

The logic that entries can be removed because they need secondary (or tertiary) sources does not have a firm basis in Wikipedia policy. As WP:NOR states of primary sources, primary sources may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. As long as it does not require analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis to determine that an entry is a valid and accurate example of a stellar system appearing in a fictional work, we don't need secondary or tertiary sources for the content to remain in the article; these will merely be a necessary part of improving the article.

Your response regarding WP:POPCULT and the apparent overlap it seems to have in your mind with the issue of sourcing (your edit summary here says that you removed the Dune reference due to WP:POPCULT concerns, but you say here in the talk page that you were primarily concerned about sourcing) is making your approach even more nonsensical to me than before. Given your unhelpful attempt at soft strawmanning my position, I think it's safe to either table this portion of the discussion until we agree on sourcing first or redirect it from a focus on WP:POPCULT to a discussion about building an explicit consensus on what types of entries would merit inclusion (e.g. the above comment in the #Trivial items section that If a planet is only mentioned in a work, or appears only briefly without a real part to play in the work, that's not substantial enough for this list.)

I can acknowledge that a lot of discussion and thought has gone into implementing WP:POPCULT as a policy, but I hope you don't expect me to pore through six different deletion discussions to identify a consensus on this article. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 05:02, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Aeusoes1. I'd seen these page-reducing edits and have tried to make the editor slow down and not remove pages which have sourced Wikipedia articles (like the Tintin Moon voyage comic removed from the Moon landings in fiction page) to no avail. There is an ongoing discussion about this at the Wikiproject Spaceflight talk page. More Wikiprojects and editors should be called to get involved (the Science fiction wikiproject seems to be inactive). It will take a Village to go over all the changes and fix what has been broken. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:31, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I think a simple restore to the 21 November version of the article might suffice, but having to chase down all the other articles where he deleted references might be more painful. Tarl N. (discuss) 05:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

@Aeusoes1: I don't understand the point you're trying to make about MOS:POPCULT vs. sourcing. MOS:POPCULT says Cultural references about a subject (for example how it is presented in a movie, song, television show, etc.) should not be included simply because they exist. Rather, all such references should be discussed in at least one reliable secondary source which specifically links the cultural item to the subject of the article. This source should cover the subject of the article in some depth; it should not be a source about the cultural item which merely mentions the subject. (The subject of the article here is Stars and planetary systems in fiction and the cultural item is e.g. Dune) That's the part that says that we can remove entries if they only have primary sources. All entries need sourcing that meet the MOS:POPCULT requirements. The sourcing issue and the MOS:POPCULT issue are the same. TompaDompa (talk) 10:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

It's clear that you have not yet convinced the community on the case that you wish to make. If we are to view your understanding about requirements for secondary or tertiary sourcing as legitimate, we still have the issue that the community objects to your wholesale deletions without first challenging the material and giving time to corroborate with sourcing.

I think there are two courses of action (somewhat mutually exclusive from each other) that would work to satisfy both parties' concerns identified in this discussion so far:

1. Provisionally restore the deleted material with {{cn}} and {{psc}} tags
2. Place the deleted material in the talk page (perhaps even as a table)

The benefit of (2) is that there is an easy way for members of the community to identify challenged material without it remaining in the article with inadequate sourcing. It also avoids the problem inherent in (1) of agreeing on what would be a reasonable amount of time before removal would be justified (something I would think to be weeks or months, given the volume of material being challenged, but you might want to be less than that). But I would be fine with either choice. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 14:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

A way simpler solution than either of those would be linking people to an old revision that contains the now-removed entries such as Special:Permalink/1056788873. That way, we don't clutter either the article or the talk page. It would also be possible to create a sandbox (or similar), which would facilitate editing. TompaDompa (talk) 16:24, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm coming in here from Binary stars in fiction where this user has just cleared and redirected the article here, with justifications based on MOS:POPCULT which in my opinion do not hold as that guideline is for trivia sections, which does not apply here. The redirect itself is also very questionable as it moves 'fictional stars' (imagined stars in literature), to 'real stars as fictional settings' (here). This also deletes a long historic record of fictional binary systems, which was referenced and was being viewed around 5,000 times a year as a resource. These kind of unilateral changes to a whole ecosystem of pages is clearly against WP:Consensus and without getting all the interested editors on board is going to cause issues. I advocate reverting these major changes and listening to TompaDompa's proposal, before coming to a consensus on these changes and redirects affecting so many pages and losing potentially decades of edits and referenced material. Mountaincirque^talk 11:16, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Community consensus is opposed to TV Tropes-style lists of appearances of X in fiction/popular culture/whatever with entries that are based solely on WP:Primary sources. Consensus is also opposed to basing the content of such articles on WP:Secondary sources about the works themselves, as opposed to sources about the overarching topic of the article (i.e. X in fiction/popular culture/whatever), which has been codified in MOS:POPCULT. This is not something I came up with on my own, this has been discussed pretty thoroughly (the current text of MOS:POPCULT is the result of fairly lengthy discussion about how best to handle this kind of material). For some specific examples of TV Tropes-style lists being rejected in favour of prose articles based on proper secondary (and/or tertiary) sources, see WP:Articles for deletion/Far future in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Eco-terrorism in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Earth in science fiction (2nd nomination), WP:Articles for deletion/Space stations and habitats in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Supernovae in fiction, and WP:Articles for deletion/Neptune in fiction. The community has rejected having these kinds of TV Tropes-style lists that merely provide examples in favour of prose articles about the topic in question. The way I usually put it is that we don't want list of rainy days in London, we want climate of London (and the essay WP:CARGO puts it thusly: Collecting raw data does not produce an analysis. The raw data can be examples, that demonstrate the analysis. (There are some elephant jokes in elephant joke, for example.) But simply amassing huge piles of them doesn't make an analysis. What makes an analysis is finding the works of experts in the field who have done analyses of the raw data, and then condensing and summarizing their published analyses into the article. (Collecting raw data and then producing our own novel analyses of those data is, of course, original research that is forbidden here.)). Simply fixing these massive and widespread issues with the articles that remain, in the same way we have fixed such issues before with similar articles, seems a lot more sensible to me than dragging a bunch of articles to WP:AfD to relitigate this separately for every single article.

There's a reason Earth in science fiction can be a WP:Good article (thanks mainly to User:Piotrus, whom I gave a WP:Deletion to Quality Award for that) after having been rewritten in prose form as a result of its nomination for deletion, that reason being that prose is much better than list format for covering this kind of information (also a reason the WP:AfDs rejected the lists in favour of prose articles in the first place). It could even conceivably be turned into a WP:Featured article with further improvements. There is absolutely no chance that the list version of that article could ever have become a WP:Featured list, nor could stars and planetary systems in fiction or binary stars in fiction. TompaDompa (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Quick note as I don't have time to read all of the above this minute: the topic of stars and planet in fiction is notable, but it should be an analytical overview with exmaples sourced to secondary sources, not a fancrufty list of all the works that a given star or planet is mentioned in, often in passing (!). INDISCRIMINATE/NLIST/OR failures abound in the past version of this article etc. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

One issue I could see in this list, before the removal of content, is that it might be WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The issue of using secondary sources would be an issue of notability, not verifiability. That being said, I do agree with @Mountaincirque: that this page may not be an appropriate redirect target for Binary stars in fiction, since it only covers fictional depictions of real stars. Perhaps an "In Popular Culture" section at Binary star would be more appropriate. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:27, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

@TompaDompa:, I see a trend here in your approach where you have a vision of the what this article should look like and are attempting to use policy to skirt around the need to discuss this in the face of objection. Given what you've said, it sounds like, even if other editors were to find secondary and tertiary sources for all of the examples you've removed (because you apparently don't wish to do so yourself), you might still object on the grounds of WP:INDISCRIMINATE because you also object to the article primarily being a list of examples as opposed to an overarching analysis. That can be a valid standard, but you don't get to make that decision singlehandedly, especially in the face of opposition.

We don't even have to disagree on your reading of WP:POPCULTURE MOS:POPCULT to still see a problem of removing content with vague rationale. These policies do not provide guidance for what our threshold for inclusion would be, just that they shouldn't be indiscriminate. It's community discussion that decides that. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 15:17, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you're getting these ideas about my intentions from. At any rate, a couple of things I want to clarify: I have looked for sources, and that's how I've been able to write a WP:LEAD for this article. Also, I have been talking about MOS:POPCULT, not WP:POPCULTURE. TompaDompa (talk) 16:15, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you've written a well-sourced lead. But I'm not talking about that, and I believe you ought to know this, given what I've already said in quite plain language. I repeat, you have not sought out corroborating sources or attempted to correct inadequate citation; in every instance where you found an entry missing a citation to a secondary or tertiary source, you've deleted it. That alone tells me that you didn't bother looking, but you've also explicitly admitted in this talk page discussion that you didn't do so ("I didn't look for sources about the entries...") because you believe that looking for corroboration of existing unsourced material to be "backwards."

So you haven't bothered to look for sources to insufficiently sourced content, you haven't bothered tagging this content (which both WP:V and WP:PRESERVE recommend) and, amid objection from the community, you continue to delete content. So in answer to your question, I'm getting the ideas from what you've said and what you've done. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 04:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't really have a vision of the what this article should look like other than that it should reflect what WP:Reliable sources on the topic say. The content I have removed for lacking proper sourcing has not been removed on the grounds that it fails WP:Verifiability or constitutes WP:Original research. Talking about what WP:V recommends is missing the point entirely. As for WP:PRESERVE, what it says is that as long as any of the facts or ideas added to an article would belong in the "finished" article, they should be retained if they meet the three article content retention policies: Neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), Verifiability, and No original research., and that is precisely the issue: does the content actually belong? Well, that's not for us to say but for WP:Reliable sources about the topic to say, because we're supposed to reflect what the sources say about the topic and to do so in WP:PROPORTION to how the sources treat each aspect. The piped link to WP:ONUS from "would belong" is also not an accident; demonstrating that the content actually does belong falls upon the editor(s) in favour of inclusion.

It should hopefully go without saying that the proper way to assess how to give appropriate weight to different aspects of the topic stars and planetary systems in fiction in WP:PROPORTION to how WP:Reliable sources do so is to look at what sources about the overarching topic say. Trying to find sources for specific examples to justify their inclusion is not particularly helpful, because by doing so you're inherently skewing the results and not getting a representative view of the weight given to those aspects by the body of reliable, published material on the subject. TompaDompa (talk) 06:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

So you've removed content based on the principle that we should include what secondary and tertiary sources do, but haven't bothered to find what secondary and tertiary sources include. How would you then know that the material would belong in the "finished" article if you haven't sought out such sources? You can't rely on WP:RS, WP:V, or MOS:POPCULT to determine that because the arena in which this dispute arises is not verification, but rather consensus.

Given that you deny having a criteria for inclusion beyond verifiability, please reassure us that you would not remove content that is restored so long as it is verified by secondary or tertiary sources. Just to be explicit, that would mean that the article may go back to being primarily a list of examples. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 14:41, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

If you think that's what I said, please read what I wrote again. TompaDompa (talk) 15:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Misleading title

TompaDompa's redirect of Binary stars in fiction brought this article to my attention. Regardless of if, or how many entries are restored to this list, the title seems to be misleading. All entries here seem to be of planetary systems around real stars, but the title seems to imply that it would include entirely fictional star systems as well. Perhaps a title like Real stars and planetary systems in fiction would be more suitable? TornadoLGS (talk) 20:08, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I think the opposite approach would be more appropriate: keep the current title and include fictional star systems in addition to real ones. That would be more in line with how WP:Reliable sources do it, see e.g. the "Star" entry in Brian Stableford's Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia, the "Stars" entry in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and the "Stars" entry in The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy. Those sources all discuss real and fictional stars alike in the same entry rather than having separate entries for them (and they also all discuss binary/multiple stars in their respective entries rather than giving such stars a separate entry). TompaDompa (talk) 01:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Interesting point that without the clarifier 'real' this topic could be open to fictional entities. I suggest a review of how relevsant entries are named in classic encyclopedias and reference works of sf, listed here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Science_Fiction#Good_sources. I am pretty sure I saw some of these works sporting chapters on 'Stars', 'Planets', etc. {S. I see TD is already on top of this, and I concur there is nothing wrong with discussing both real and fictional entities, as long as they are notable. For example, my space travel in fiction GA discusses both real concepts like ram jets and fictional stuff like hyper/warp drives. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

One place to start could be fictional systems and/or planets with their own articles, such as Tatooine, since those would likely have third-party sources. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:03, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

The question is whether e.g. Tatooine gets this kind of coverage in sources about the general topic of stars and/or planets in fiction, as opposed to only in Star Wars-oriented sources. From what I've seen so far, it doesn't seem like it really does. I think it would probably be better to have a navigational list of fictional planets/stars that have their own articles, which we would naturally link to from this article, like so:

For fictional planets and stars that have stand-alone articles, see fictional planets and stars.

That way, we don't run into a whole host of WP:BALASP issues. TompaDompa (talk) 18:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I have actually encountered (albeit minor) references to Tatooine outside of Star Wars-centric media, for instance in discussions of real planets in binary star systems, as Tatooine is likely the most well-known such planet in science fiction. Some of these planets do come up when talking about the habitability of exoplanets, though I couldn't name specific sources. I don't really the issue of having a general discussion of the topic and a list of a few notable examples, but I regularly work with articles structured like that (e.g. 2021 Atlantic hurricane season). TornadoLGS (talk) 19:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

For example, this page from NASA. I'm not necessarily suggesting it as a source, but these planets do come up. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

You are correct that that's not a Star Wars-oriented source, but it's not really a source on the subject of this article (stars and planetary systems in fiction), either. It's a source on the topic of circumbinary planets. It would perhaps be a good fit for that article, but not for this one. TompaDompa (talk) 16:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Kind of splitting hairs at that point, I'd say. I'm mostly using it as an example of the far reach of Star Wars planets on popular culture. I understand that your edits to this article are based on established style guidelines, but strict adherence to those guidelines is not necessary, especially if it gets in the way of improving the article. It's possible that you're not finding adequate sources for entries here because the criteria you're setting are too narrow. I think it would be acceptable to use such references, at least until better sources can be found. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that's splitting hairs, I think it's staying on topic. I'm wary of covering certain aspects to an extent that is disproportionate to their treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject (see WP:PROPORTION). That's something that is very easy to do accidentally, especially when writing about fiction.

Anyway, I'm planning to expand the article based on some sources I've been able to locate. Hopefully I'll be able to do that within the next few days. TompaDompa (talk) 20:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I might suggest place the under-construction template in this case. I;m not sure if it's appropriate for me to place it, since I'm not the one restructuring the article. Perhaps it's because I don't usually edit articles on fictional topics, but I'm kind of used to seeing information drawn from a range of sources that overlap on the relevant topic.TornadoLGS (talk) 21:07, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Moving forward

It's becoming clear that TompaDompa's recent wholesale deletions have encountered resistance - in particular, little support for MOS:POPCULT applying to this article. Under WP:BRD, the appropriate action would be to simply revert to an earlier version and then proceed to discuss the proposed changes here. That would be significantly disruptive, and I'd prefer to see if there is consensus to move forward with that before pulling the trigger. Comments? Tarl N. (discuss) 20:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Reading this thing out of curiosity, what exactly is the plan after you gather enough people that you can call a 'consensus' to revert all his changes? The POPCULT guideline seems straightforward enough, as is the precedent from numerous AfDs, and TompaDompa's arguments so far are basically supported by all that. The arguments against him are "slow down", "a lot of people have put work into this", "WP:PRESERVE" (even though that policy explicitly excludes trivia), or some procedural details that don't really matter (guideline supposedly applying to sections only, not articles). The burden of demonstrating that content should be preserved lies on those wishing to add or retain it. BRD doesn't mean Wikipedia is inert, and if your case for reverting and demanding that a consensus be formed is based on those sorts of arguments, without any concrete plan of further action, then you risk being simply an unnecessary obstruction. Avilich (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd revert back to here (where Lithopsian suggest WP:DRAFT work). There have been 300-odd edits made by TompaDompa since then, deleting roughly 95% of the article: It used to have information about 187 different stars, now it has 10. Surely some of that deletion was well-deserved, but there have been complaints about wholesale and inappropriate deletions. Reading MOS:POPCULT it's very clear to me that policy was intended for "in popular culture" sections of articles, not as a prohibition of such information in their own articles. To go forward, I'd prefer we start over and discuss the massive changes before they are made. Tarl N. (discuss) 23:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm neutral to whether/where we revert to. But I think we should have a discussion that creates an explicit consensus about notability. Even if that discussion is informed by prior discussions that have occurred elsewhere, we should have it established here so that we can avoid ambiguity. Uncited sources can be cited. Secondary and tertiary sources can be added, but those alone won't determine how to avoid this article being an indiscriminate collection of information. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 00:15, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Trivia is trivia whether it's located in a section or a separate article. That someone just so happened to create a spinoff article to deposit every popcult mention instead of trying to fit everything into a section inside the parent article doesn't make the guideline any less applicable. The correct thing to do is what TompaDompa has been doing: to trim these indiscriminate listings and rewrite them as prose with secondary sources. You say you want to discuss, but you don't need to revert anything at all to do so (all diffs are at your disposal), and so far your only arguments are, as I have pointed out above, 1, that you're astonished by his speed and amount of content rewritten, and, 2, that a small procedural technicality invalidates the entire spirit of the WP guideline on popcult trivia. You have not pointed out anything specifically objectionable, content-wise, and indeed, vague and elusive remarks like "some of that deletion was well-deserved but" and "there have been complaints about wholesale and inappropriate deletions", which don't really convey anything meaningful, suggest that none are forthcoming, and that this is all inertia rather than genuine concern for improvement of the article. That 95% of the article was rewritten also makes no difference: the threshold is purely arbitrary. Avilich (talk) 00:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I am with Avilich and TD on this one. This page was chock-full of unreferenced trivia, and overly loong as well. It's great to see this cut down to (referenced) size; the topic is notable, but a laundry kitchen skin list of each star and work they were mentioned in is not fit for Wikipedia (that said, I'd also suggest copying all that amazing but trivial fancruft to Fandom/Wikia, surely it is useful and can be preserved somewhere on the Internet instead of being lost in the history of our page - that it is non encyclopedic does not mean we should just destroy it). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@Avilich:, I don't think your criticism of Tarl for being vague is well placed. I have articulated specific, policy-based objections; that Tarl has not echoed them explicitly in the process of agreeing with me doesn't mean that they are unwilling to take part in a meaningful discussion. Really, your comment that they are just motivated exclusively by inertia rather than a genuine concern for improvement of the article belies an assumption of bad faith, which has no place here. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 14:33, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I'll comment that I had found this article useful in the past, tracking some things down. Seeing it go from listing nearly 200 systems down to 11 looks like wholesale and indiscriminate destruction. But my taste for wikidrama has faded, and with Avilich's appearance and comments, I'll walk away. Yes, my comments were about "inertia". It was useful before, it had a wide variety of "fancruft", which surely could have been better referenced and probably picked over for relevance. But 300 edits later each removing all but a page and a half with 11 entries, it's no longer useful. The current state probably qualifies for an RFD. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 00:01, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of the merits of the article then and now, bludgeoning onwards while discussions take place hardly strikes me as being in good faith. Given the lack of consensus, it would be hard to object to someone just reverting the whole lot. Surely a few days pause to establish some likely agreement wouldn't have caused the world to end. Lithopsian (talk) 20:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

A mass change like this does resemble disruptive editing. I support a mass revert followed by a discussion to reach consensus. (Note that, per WP:FILMPLOT, "Since films are primary sources in their articles, basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable without reference to an outside source". The only thing that needs to be established is the notability, which is usually provided by the linked article.) Praemonitus (talk) 06:18, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:FILMPLOT isn't relevant here (it's about what kind of sourcing is required for a plot summary in a film article, which isn't what we're doing here), MOS:POPCULT is. Community consensus is opposed to TV Tropes-style lists of appearances of X in fiction/popular culture/whatever with entries that are based solely on WP:Primary sources. Consensus is also opposed to basing the content of such articles on WP:Secondary sources about the works themselves, as opposed to sources about the overarching topic of the article (i.e. X in fiction/popular culture/whatever), which has been codified in MOS:POPCULT. This is not something I came up with on my own, this has been discussed pretty thoroughly (the current text of MOS:POPCULT is the result of fairly lengthy discussion about how best to handle this kind of material). For some specific examples of TV Tropes-style lists being rejected in favour of prose articles based on proper secondary (and/or tertiary) sources, see WP:Articles for deletion/Far future in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Eco-terrorism in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Earth in science fiction (2nd nomination), WP:Articles for deletion/Space stations and habitats in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Supernovae in fiction, and WP:Articles for deletion/Neptune in fiction. Simply fixing these massive and widespread issues with the articles that remain, in the same way we have fixed such issues before with similar articles, seems a lot more sensible to me than dragging a bunch of articles to WP:AfD to relitigate this separately for every single article.

Avilich basically said all of this already, but: there is nothing stopping anyone from discussing how to improve the article without restoring a previous version of the article that violates MOS:POPCULT, misrepresents sources, engages in WP:Original research, and commits outright WP:PLAGIARISM. I'm not opposed to discussing how best to improve this article, but I'm not sure what the alternative to rewriting it as a prose article in line with MOS:POPCULT—as has been done for several other articles, see above—is supposed to be. So, what are you proposing? What do you think should be done here? What are your suggestions for improving this article? TompaDompa (talk) 15:12, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

• Do the editors here think this mass-deletion project is limited to this one article? Look again, TompaDompa has been going through these pages for weeks: What the template used to look like, likely every one of its pages "worked" on. I've asked them not to remove entries which are linked to a page which has sources, with maybe limited success. Check out the Moon landings in fiction page, where the editor has tried to answer by putting cite needed tags on to more obscure linked pages but not to 2001 which they leave alone (maybe thank a god of sci-fi, Arthur C. Clarke). In any case, this deletion project has some good results (getting rid of random "there's a poster on the wall in one scene" entries) but deleting way to many sourced-at-their-page good topics of long-term historical importance and study, which is what these pages are ultimately for (studying human reaction to the advent of the thoughts of, and then the actuality of, space travel) the next several generations of Wikipedia readers. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
  • You know why I've added "citation needed" tags to those particular entries and not others: because you restored those particular entries after they were removed, one at a time, for not being supported by the kind of sourcing that MOS:POPCULT mandates. The WP:BURDEN of providing proper sourcing is on the editor who adds or restores the content, which in this case is you.
    These pages aren't for studying human reaction to the advent of the thoughts of, and then the actuality of, space travel, they're for summarizing what WP:Reliable sources have said about the topic—as is the case with all articles on Wikipedia. We're not supposed to analyse, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize what we find in WP:Primary sources, we're supposed to leave that to WP:Secondary sources (and tertiary ones, sometimes). And we can in fact write articles based on sources that do that—see e.g. Moon in fiction which summarizes what WP:Reliable sources have said about how fictional depictions of the Moon have been influenced by the first moon landing in 1969—but that requires actually finding the sources that discuss those aspects and writing the articles based on those sources. TompaDompa (talk) 15:49, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
    • The Tintin adventure Explorers on the Moon has 56 sources on its page. If you didn't like it being on the list but are fine with 2001, and removed it as unsourced while not doing 2001, then please understand why I've been opposing the wholesale moves until a group of people check every one to makes sure its linked article is unsourced. You could have gone there yourself and added a source if you think that's a problem instead of removing the page. Tintin's Explorers on the Moon either describes or implies a Moon landing, I haven't read the volume, and qualifies for the page. He's exploring the Moon, for Armstrong's sake. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:51, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
      • We're kind of getting off topic here, but anyway: I removed the entries one at a time in a more or less arbitrary order, and I would've removed the 2001 later for the same reason (unless it had become properly sourced in the meantime, of course). I have actually read the Tintin adventure many years ago, and they do indeed land on the Moon. That is however irrelevant to the point here, which you seem to have missed completely: the entries need to be discussed in sources about the topic of the article, i.e. Moon landings in fiction, per MOS:POPCULT. Again, I'm not the one who came up with that, that's the result of rather lengthy discussion and represents the current consensus about how to treat this kind of material in general. I have actually looked for sources on the overarching topic—the ones I've found discuss Moon landings in fiction as part of their general discussion about the Moon in fiction and I have consequently elected to cover it over at Moon in fiction#Moon landings—and as it turns out, they don't mention Tintin (they do mention 2001, but not in the context of Moon landings). Your assertion that the Tintin adventure qualifies for inclusion flies in the face of MOS:POPCULT unless you have some source to back that up with that you have yet to share with the rest of us. TompaDompa (talk) 17:25, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
        • The point is the removal of pertinent material from a wide variety of articles, and you saying you would have removed 2001 should set off alarm bells everywhere alarm bells are installed. Are you saying that according to your reading of popcult's view a source has to specifically mention the words "Moon landing in fiction" and not just confirm that a Moon landing has taken place? The language you and the guideline use seems confusing, can you give an example or two? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:30, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
          • Sure. If we are to include Tintin in an article about Moon landings in fiction, we need a reliable source about Moon landings in fiction, not just a reliable source about Tintin. In general, if we are to include example ABC in an article about XYZ in fiction, we need a reliable source about XYZ in ficion (what MOS:POPCULT calls "the subject of the article"), not just a reliable source about ABC (what MOS:POPCULT calls "the cultural item"). An example of a reliable source for XYZ in fiction when XYZ is space-related is the relevant entry in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction (if one exists). TompaDompa (talk) 15:00, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

To try to get back on topic here. Having looked at TompaDompa's contributions, they have made well over 1500 edits to the pages within the Template:Astronomical locations in fiction in the past month, around a thousand of these were in the past fortnight, many of these are deletions/blanking. None of these had consensus but they are continuing to reshape the ecosystem despite a number of objections both here and on other connected talk pages. I am fully aware of WP:Assume good faith, and I would say that many of the changes in of themself, considered individually, make sense. However, when you add these up, into the thousands, it becomes a major re-design and blanking exercise. I really don't understand why TompaDompa cannot spell out his full intentions for the pages in this template and get everyone onside before being so drastic, rather than just forging ahead regardless. Mountaincirque^talk 12:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

The background here is that several articles within Template:Astronomical locations in fiction have been nominated for deletion recently with the outcome being consensus to rewrite them as prose articles rather than the TV Tropes-style lists they were at the time they were nominated. See WP:Articles for deletion/Earth in science fiction (2nd nomination), WP:Articles for deletion/Supernovae in fiction, and WP:Articles for deletion/Neptune in fiction. A few others have been rewritten in the same manner without going through WP:AfD first. I'm planning to do the same for the rest of them, where possible.

There is a community-wide consensus about how topics like this are to be sourced, and that has been codified in MOS:POPCULT. Removing content that does not meet those requirements is simply enforcing existing standards. The only question that remains is what the next step should be. While it's true that that wasn't discussed ahead of time for these specific articles, either individually or collectively, the precedent is pretty clear: rewrite as prose instead. If you have alternative suggestions, please share them. TompaDompa (talk) 22:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

If this is your attempt to spell out your full intentions for the pages in this template, you will need to do better, TompaDompa. You have already been tasked with doing so several times and have not provided anything beyond a desire to ensure that content is properly sourced. The more you contribute without doing this and the more you edit these articles, the more WP:OWNy your behavior becomes. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 01:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

My intentions are to clean up these articles such that they comply with Wikipedia's standards, including but not limited to MOS:POPCULT. Calling that "WP:OWNy" is rather silly. I would be more inclined to characterize the position that changes to the status quo should be discussed ahead of time as such, especially in the absence of other specific suggestions about how to improve the article(s). For that matter, I would be more inclined to characterize the phrasing You have already been tasked with (as opposed to, say, "asked to") as such. TompaDompa (talk) 06:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Community discussion is an important part of the project, not some option that you get to disregard if someone doesn't ask you nicely. You can bristle at the implication that you might be going about this in an abrasive manner all you want, but no one here has reverted your edits, and no one has even implied that you aren't allowed to edit the article. So implying that several other editors are exhibiting OWNy behavior because they are showing resistance in the talk page strikes me as a childish attempt at Tu quoque. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 17:57, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Not what I said, and you know it. But more to the point, I have in fact engaged in discussion. I have asked what other editors think the best way to improve the article is. I haven't stopped anybody else from attempting to improve the article. Unfortunately, the discussion on this talk page has mostly been a kind of meta-discussion about the need for discussion. So to bring us back to the core topic: What are you proposing? What do you think should be done here? What are your suggestions for improving this article? TompaDompa (talk) 23:35, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

You can consider my revert to have been solely "procedural" with no special favour shown to any particular content. I was just returning, more or less, to a pre-debate article in line with the attempts of more than one other editor. I have no great love the for the article in its long condition, but the approach of making hundreds of edits while there are clear misgivings from multiple other editors, and while there is still active discussion without anything close to a consensus, is just not how this should be done. Get consensus, work on a draft if it would be helpful to see or work on the format of a replacement article, and above all don't attempt to bulldoze through all opposition by sheer weight of words and edits. Lithopsian (talk) 14:04, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, that's the only way I could parse what you wrote. If that's not what you intended, you haven't been very clear.

You and I have both attempted to draw out people's vision for the article. I've put a workable start below — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]}

That's pretty biased interpretation. I don't see any serious objections, and I for one am fully supportive of TD's rewrites, which are transforming fancrufty listicles or random trivia into something resembling entries found in reference works like the https://sf-encyclopedia.com/ Consensus for such rewrites seems clear from AfDs when such topics end up there. Perhaps the best practice would be for TD to list such articles AfD, see them properly deleted, then write them after WP:TNT - although this way will result in the loss of editing history, so I'd prefer the current SOFTDELETE approach of rewriting this. That said, it wouldn't be the first time hardcore inclusionist would shoot themselves in the foot and bring hard delete to cases where soft delete is enough. But if someone wants to force the issues... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

You've got a bit over the top here when everyone is being quite civil, I don't think many of us are 'hardcore inclusionists', it would be just nice to understand the rationale when embarking on an 1800+ edit restructure across many connected pages. I do feel that this page has now improved with the 'Type' section of prose added by TompaDompa, which has incorporated some previously-deleted text from Binary stars in fiction, so I'm more reassured than I was. Mountaincirque^talk 15:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

The problem remains that majority of the "long" article is "cool" but fails GNG/OR/SYNTH/FANCFRUT and so on... I think AfD discussions like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fomalhaut in fiction have indicated such lists cannot remain. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:44, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I would think an AfD would be a bit WP:POINTy if we don't actually intend to get rid of this article. Wouldn't an RfC be more appropriate? If it does simply get rewritten, as TD seems intent on, content would still be available in the edit history if there is reason to retrieve some of it. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:09, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Bringing the article to WP:AfD with the intention of getting it rewritten would have been very WP:POINTy, not to mention WP:BUREAUcratic, which is why I didn't. I don't think an WP:RfC would have been appropriate either, because those need a clear question with clear and well-defined answers. Starting one ahead of time would basically just have amounted to "all in favour of doing something, say 'aye'". Even now, what would the options be? RfCs are usually most productive when previous discussion has resulted in a stalemate around a particular contentious but well-defined (and typically but not necessarily fairly limited) issue with a limited number of clear-cut options all of which enjoy some support as an outcome. TompaDompa (talk) 23:35, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

It seems so far that there have been several attempts in this thread to get others to articulate what they would like to see in the final version of this article. Since so far no one has really taken the bite on responding to such queries, I thought I'd go the opposite route and declare a first draft proposal of what I think the "final version" of the article should have:

1. Allow for a long list again. I have no problem with scrutinizing for notability, but going from a list of almost 200 star systems to less than a dozen is a losing a lot of work from numerous editors over many years; as others have said, that information made this page a useful source of information.
2. Restrict to works of ficton that take place in the star system/planet in question.
3. Allow for secondary sources to be used for verification, not just tertiary ones.
4. Only real stars. Until TompaDompa's edits, there was no coverage of fictional planets and stellar systems and IMHO these fictional planets don't have a place here (though they can go at planets in science fiction. Maybe that means we need to reconsider the title. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 02:42, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

If we go with the last point, then this article should be moved to a title that explicitly indicates that it is about the depiction of real stars in fiction and not fictional stars, which I bring up in the section above this one. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:55, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Any ideas? We can probably avoid "and planetary systems" in whatever we formulate, since that is kind of redundant. We may want to pair our rename with planets in science fiction, something like Real stars in fiction and Fictional stars in fiction. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 16:19, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Fictional stars could be covered by an article dedicated to planetary systems, since its the planets and/or systems, rather than the stars themselves, that are the setting. But I think expanding the scope of this article to include entirely fictional systems is the better option. If a story is set on a fictional planet, I don't think it's a terribly big distinction whether the star it orbits is real or not. TornadoLGS (talk) 17:53, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

IMHO, it is of encyclopedic interest to focus on coverage of works of fiction set in real star systems in a genre that more often features made up ones. We could, in addition, spotlight fictional works that choose to set their stories on one of the many exoplanets that have been discovered, but I suspect those are relatively rare.

Because planets in science fiction already covers fictional star systems, the separation between real and fictional star systems has been the status quo for a long time. I don't see a compelling reason to change that. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 18:38, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Though, per my comment above, that the planets are generally the focus of the story rather than the stars, would fictional stars, in and of themselves, warrant an article? TornadoLGS (talk) 19:02, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm with TornadoLGS on this. The current approach is more in line with how WP:Reliable sources do it, see e.g. the "Star" entry in Brian Stableford's Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia, the "Stars" entry in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and the "Stars" entry in The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy. Those sources all discuss real and fictional stars alike in the same entry rather than having separate entries for them. I think that's a compelling reason to do likewise. Planets in science fiction is also badly in need of a cleanup (I would suggest turning it into a navigational list similar to Astronomical locations in fiction).

As for using secondary sources, the article already cites a couple of them such as Aliens in Pop Culture. I don't think having a long list of examples should be an aim in itself; the list of examples that used to be on the article was of extremely poor quality and almost none of the examples listed were usable since only a handful of them had proper sourcing. A list is also not the best way of presenting this type of information; examples should ideally be illustrative of the analysis that makes up the core of the article. TompaDompa (talk) 00:57, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that's a compelling reason to do likewise. Wikipedia is its own project, and we are allowed to have articles with a focus of our choosing so long as it is encyclopedic. Fictional works set in real star systems is an encyclopedic topic.

Given that I have already indicated with point (1) that I have no problem with scrutinizing the list to ensure proper sourcing, I don't get your point that you removed entries for not having proper sources. Can you please clarify the relevance of mentioning that?

Wikipedia policy allows for articles that are composed mainly of lists. That you wish to add prose with overarching analysis is fine, but that's not a reason to limit the list itself. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 18:14, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Compelling is perhaps too strong a word. It is a good reason to do likewise, since we're supposed to reflect the sources. I don't see a good reason to draw an arbitrary line (as TornadoLGS pointed out, what's the difference if a fictional planet orbits a fictional star or a real one?) between real and fictional stars when the sources don't.

The point is that those examples were not removed because there were too many examples. The number of examples is not something that we should be trying to change—in either direction—for its own sake. Quality is the relevant thing to look at here, not quantity.

Obviously list articles are allowed, but that doesn't necessarily mean that this article would be better with list formatting than with its current prose formatting. Indeed, as MOS:POPCULT points out, prose is usually preferable. The article currently has a fairly substantial number of illustrative examples that are presented in prose form. TompaDompa (talk) 02:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I am restoring this article to how it was on October 31st, as it appears a majority of people here are in agreement- the downsizing of this article is not a good thing, and it appears that it only has gotten smaller since this talk section was started- if you want to argue for your vision of the article Tompa, you can do it while the unedited version stands.Chickeness (talk) 03:54, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, I was actually starting to see TompaDompa's side of things, since this page does seem to be a case of example cruft and is longer than the recommended maximum length for an article. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:08, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. It's not a majority vote, and I don't really agree with the assessment that there is an agreement that the downsizing of this article is not a good thing (see e.g. the comments by Avilich and Piotrus). In the interest of not starting an WP:Edit war I'm not going to revert this right away, but since the article badly needs cleanup I will add a couple of maintenance templates to that effect. Anybody is of course welcome to clean the article up by improving sourcing, removing excessive examples, and so on. If nothing else, I'll get back to it myself later.

What I will however do right away is restore the prose part I wrote. The earlier version of the prose introduction contained blatant WP:OR, improper use of primary sources, misrepresentations of sources, and outright WP:PLAGIARISM. That is obviously not acceptable, and I'm guessing there was no specific intention of reintroducing that but rather that it was just a side-effect of reverting to an old version of the article. It's not like there have been strenuous objections to the old version of the prose introduction being replaced with the new one—discussion has focused on the examples—so this should be uncontroversial. TompaDompa (talk) 00:29, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

The prose part that you wrote was mostly about fictional stars, which is the main thing talked about outside of the concern for excessive entries. It's well-researched enough, but there's not agreement as to its relevance to the scope of this article. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 00:36, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough that the specifics of my version have been discussed, but the main point I was making was that removing the prose that used to be there did not result in protests against that prose being removed and that removing it again should therefore not be controversial. Restoring the prose that I had written was more about having a prose introduction at all. This is rather moot now as the edit that reverted to the October 31 version of the article has itself been reverted by Avilich. TompaDompa (talk) 01:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

This has been reverted, and I reverted, but reverts are probably not the right way to deal with this (although the editor whom I reverted hasn't yet commented here, sigh). Anyway, AfD or RfC might be needed for the next step. Regarding AfD, TD's version could be split and then the "old mess fancruft list" here could be AFD per WP:TNT. Although this might result in the deletion of the history. The current rewrite, preserving the old content from which few tidbits could be potentially rescued, seems better - but it wouldn't not be the first time that good faithed but a tad overzealous inclusionists refusing to compromise would end up getting hard delete as a result. May I suggest deescalation? Softdelete is generally better. I agree the long list is "cool" but sadly it does not meet GNG/OR/etc. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:40, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I should like William M. Connolley and Lithopsian to explain whether they deliberately removed maintenance tags and restored blatant WP:OR, improper use of primary sources, misrepresentations of sources, and outright WP:PLAGIARISM or whether that was just a side effect of an unfortunate choice of revision to revert to. I would assume the latter, in which case I shall correct that mishap. TompaDompa (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Also, please let's not make this an edit war. This should be settled on the talk page and I'd rather not have to take this to RfPP. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:20, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Just to make it clear what is being argued here, no one is advocating that the entire list from before TompaDompa's edits be restored without any effort at corroborating with secondary sources. I wouldn't be surprised if efforts to corroborate would still trim the original list by half, and I would personally be okay with trimming it down with that criteria alone.

I don't think other limiting criteria would be a problem either, and we can come up with those as I did with point (2) above). But we shouldn't be so limiting that we restrict the utility of the article. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 21:52, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• Now Saturn in fiction is being culled of entries with articles with promises of more to come (see recent page history). Wikipedia has a problem here of extreme deletions in one field, space and space exploration related fiction, and there doesn't seem to be any letup. Can someone check the extreme editing of Space travel in science fiction as well which may be just good copyediting but I'm not sure, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
• Venus in fiction was culled yesterday, massive removals of entries which have Wikipedia articles. Have reverted until these can be checked by editors outside of those doing the removals from these long-term and well-worked on topics. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:19, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Compromise?

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

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

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

...

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beetlejuice - Betelgeuse

Should be added because the character Betelgeuse is named after the star Anpus8 (talk) 13:11, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Gamma Drac0nis

Gamma Draconis appears twice in the list. -- Evertype·✆ 14:28, 9 December 2023 (UTC)