Talk:Pluto in fiction

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

Fate of the references to pluto[edit]

Since it is no longer a planet, so you think that all these references of Pluto will stand (since it is impossible to update a material after it is completed, unless you are the creator), or that it will hidden like the WTC references after 9/11, what do you think of this? Falconleaf 01:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forever War[edit]

This page lists Pluto as being a training ground, which is wrong (at least according to my version of the book). The actual training ground was called Charon - though it was to far out to be Pluto's moon (it could conceivably be one of the large dwarf planets, e.g. Eris or Sedna).

Artist's conception and lack of credits[edit]

...It would be really nice to source these works of art, don'tcha think? I'd like to know that if someone used my art, it got proper credit. --Onore Baka Sama (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Artist's Impression[edit]

The main image looks suspiciously like Ganymede... 216.246.130.20 (talk) 20:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Books[edit]

As far as I recall, Pluto does not feature in Fred Hoyle's book October the First Is Too Late. I propose to delete this entry unless someone can give me a page reference. PhilUK (talk) 10:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who: Underworld[edit]

TompaDompa, what is your standard for a story's inclusion in this article? The Sun Makers has a wikipedia page. Most of the stories listed do not. Algr (talk) 23:13, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whether works have a Wikipedia article or not is irrelevant. What matters is being covered in sources on the topic—Pluto in fiction. TompaDompa (talk) 02:51, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is unclear. Is your issue that I didn't copy the existing sources from The Sun Makers? Or that no new stories can ever be added because their sources aren't already in Pluto in fiction? The Sunmakers is a 90 minute serial that is certainly more well known then most of the short stories currently in the article. ~~~ Algr (talk) 22:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My issue is that you didn't cite sources on the topic of this article—Pluto in fiction. One example of such a source is the "Pluto" entry in Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia. TompaDompa (talk) 22:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendation[edit]

@TompaDompa: If possible, I would personally recommend that you add more information about Charon to the article. Again, this is only a suggestion. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I had a source similar to Stephen Baxter's "Under Titan's Green Sky: Titan in Science Fiction and Science" (used for Saturn in fiction#Titan), I certainly would. Unfortunately, sources on Pluto and Charon in fiction are rather sparse. TompaDompa (talk) 16:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: AryKun (talk · contribs) 16:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
  • Robert Silverberg is duplinked.
  • "for Mars in fiction and 131 for Venus in fiction" You can just pipe the links; no need to shoehorn in the titles, it makes the sentence sound worse. Same for Uranus and Neptune later on.
    • The counterpoint to that is that the links would kind of become WP:EASTEREGGS as readers might expect them to lead to Mars, Venus, and so on. I think that's a more important aspect. The same phrasing is used in Uranus in fiction and Neptune in fiction, for what it's worth. TompaDompa (talk) 16:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • You could just link them with for: like for Mars. It would remove the EGG while still reading naturally instead of feeling like we're just shoving a link in for no reason.
  • "On the topic," Can be omitted, doesn't add much to the sentence.
    • Removed.
  • "presumed-harsh" Don't think this should be hyphenated.
    • I think it should. It's not that the environmental conditions are presumed and harsh ("the presumed harsh conditions" can be parsed as "the presumed, harsh, conditions"), it's that they are presumed to be harsh. "Presumed-harsh" is used attributively as a compound descriptor here. TompaDompa (talk) 16:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Even before its discovery" "It" doesn't have a clear referent here, just use "Pluto's" instead.
  • "Alien life on Pluto is a common motif, sometimes including intelligent life." would be better as "Alien life on Pluto, sometimes including intelligent life, is a common motif in fictional stories about the planet."
    • Reworded. I've tried to avoid calling Pluto a planet in WP:WikiVoice since it isn't considered one anymore. TompaDompa (talk) 16:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and crystal lifeforms" should be "and to crystal lifeforms"
    • No, it shouldn't. "More exotic" modifies both "mist creatures" and "crystal lifeforms", and that requires that "to" come before "more exotic". TompaDompa (talk) 16:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • It really doesn't read like "more exotic" is modifying "crystal lifeforms"; if you want it to have that effect, 'more exotic mist creatures and crystal lifeforms in "En Route to Pluto" and "The Red Peri", respectively'.
  • "depicted in among others" some sort of typo, can't quite figure out what it's supposed to say.
  • "alongside among others" among others in redundant
    • I don't think it is, since this is not exhaustive. TompaDompa (talk) 16:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then you could drop either "alongside" or "among" to have just "among others such as" or "alongside others such as". You only need one of the two.
        • Can't say I see why "others such as" would be any better than "among others" (which is rather an established fixed phrase), but I have at any rate made the change. TompaDompa (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Human life is less frequently portrayed on Pluto" would sound better as "Portrayals of human life on Pluto are less common"
  • "though it is terraformed" should be "though the planet is" since the it in this context refers to human life from the previous clause
    • As before, I don't want to call Pluto a planet. I've reworded it, but now "Pluto" appears twice in a single sentence. TompaDompa (talk) 16:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for the characters" remove "the"
  • "and other times Pluto is the starting point" would sound better as "or as the starting point"
    • That wouldn't really work with the preceding sentence, since Pluto isn't a destination to reach if it is the starting point. I tweaked it slightly. TompaDompa (talk) 16:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • References are mostly reliable; I'm unsure about The Skiffy and Fanty Show as a source, but as it's won multiple Hugo Awards, I suppose it can be treated a a subject expert.
  • Images are correctly licensed and used.
  • Mostly just prose and MOS issues. AryKun (talk) 15:00, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spot-checks:
    • "McKinney, Richard L. (2005). "Jupiter and the Outer Planets". In The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy: Themes, Works, and Wonders." verifies all claims made.
    • "Outer Planets. In The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction (4th ed.)" verifies all claims made.
    • "Gauger, Rick. In The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction (4th ed.)" verifies all claims made.
    • "Book Review: Cracking the Sky by Brenda Cooper" verifies all claims made.

@AryKun: Responded to your comments above. TompaDompa (talk) 16:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Lightburst (talk) 03:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
The Solar System
The Solar System

Improved to Good Article status by TompaDompa (talk). Self-nominated at 15:44, 23 July 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Pluto in fiction; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • preference for ALT1 as confirmed and interesting. The article was promoted the GA today and nominated today so is qualifies. The QPQ is done and the article uses the correct inline citations. It is neutral and free of plagiarism. The image is free, clear and used in the article. Bruxton (talk) 16:02, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Short description[edit]

Patar knight, I really don't understand this edit summary. We really don't need to clarify which Pluto this is—there is a reason why the main article is Pluto and not e.g. Pluto (dwarf planet), namely that it is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC—and a blank short description doesn't duplicate anything, does it? TompaDompa (talk) 13:50, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My bad on the WP:SDDUPLICATE bit, I was looking at my own initial edit summary, which incorrectly said that I had changed it from something else (Wikidata pull perhaps?). Must be an issue with the script I'm using. That being, being a primary topic isn't sufficient reason to not have a short description, otherwise Pluto wouldn't have one. Someone seeing this article in search results should be able to tell at a glance that it's about the dwarf planet and not Hades in popular culture or Pluto_(Disney)#Appearances. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can't say I agree. "Pluto" on its own, without further clarification, refers to the celestial object so much more frequently that spelling it out like this—especially in this context—is basically talking down to the reader. It's like trying to make sure that nobody clicks on Mercury in fiction expecting it to be about the chemical element. TompaDompa (talk) 14:18, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The short description is simply meant to help readers identify what field the article is in at a glance. An article being the primary topic doesn't mean it doesn't need a short description, otherwise a great chunk of short descriptions would have to be removed. If you have an issue with short descriptions in general, you should bring it up at Wikipedia talk:Short description.
The test for using "none" as a short description is when there is a sufficient level of detail that having one would not be helpful (e.g. Alpine skiing at the 1960 Winter Olympics – Men's downhill). Here, while it is true that the planet is the primary topic, including for depictions in fiction, it is still useful to explicitly tell people that this isn't about the Roman god or the Disney character. The Mercury example doesn't even make sense here, because there the planet isn't even at the base title, so the case for a short description is even stronger. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:53, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My point was rather the opposite—a short description is not needed for Mercury in fiction because nobody is going to expect it to be about Mercury (element) in fiction, and so a short description for Pluto in fiction is even more unnecessary. TompaDompa (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mercury is a DAB page because consensus is that unlike other planets, Mercury isn't even the clear primary topic, so the claim that nobody is going to expect the page to be about anything else isn't likely to be true. Though the bar for WP:SDNONE is much higher, the article and the parent article being the primary topic is generally a necessary prerequisite, That being said, it would be better for consistency reasons if most, if not all, of these pages have a short description to clarify that they're about the planets. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:03, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I take the opposite view that it would be better for consistency reasons if none of them do, as was the case before you added the short description here. "X in fiction" (and for that matter "X in popular culture", e.g. Battle of Thermopylae in popular culture and Loch Ness Monster in popular culture) is detailed enough that an additional short description is not helpful. If a disambiguation is not needed in the title, then it's not needed in the short description either—and then the short description just becomes a less concise rewording of the title. TompaDompa (talk) 16:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whether SDNONE applies to "X in fiction" or "X in popular culture" articles depends entirely on what X actually is and how likely non-primary meanings of X are to have encyclopedic content about their depictions. I would agree with you that the Thermopylae and Loch Ness pages do not need short descriptions, but that is not because they are "X in fiction/popular culture" articles. Instead, the other meanings of X in their cases will have little to no significant depictions and the primary topic in the context of such depictions is overwhelming.
That is not the case here. The planets are named after Greco-Roman gods that have had a rich cultural history since antiquity of being depicted in fiction and popular culture. These articles are not in any way comparable. It's very plausible that some people seeing "Venus in fiction" or "Pluto in fiction" will think about the Roman gods, even if most will think of the planet first, which is not the case for your examples.
A short description that says "Depictions of the (dwarf) planet" doesn't reword the title, it just confirms to readers that this is about the planet and not the god, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect we'll have to agree to disagree. I think basically any article title describing an intersection of two things (as here) renders a short description unnecessary as long as the components are clear, and to me an article about the deity or Disney character at the title Pluto in fiction seems straight-up implausible. We're back to whether it is talking down to the reader, and I think it is—not as bad as clarifying that Mercury in fish has nothing to do with the planet or deity would be, but not too far removed either. Perhaps the closest equivalent would be articles related to London (e.g. Climate of London and Buses in London) clarifying that they are about London and not London, Ontario. TompaDompa (talk) 17:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are 0 instances where the planet Mercury has appeared in a fish and there are 0 instances where the Roman god Mercury has appeared in a fish. By comparison Pluto has been "in fiction" since classical antiquity. Besides the Hades in popular culture, in Pluto (mythology), there are nearly 70 references between the Greek lit. and philosophy section and the Western art and lit. section. If there's a position that is talking down to readers to handwaving away the likelihood that some people might be looking for mythological/classical fiction instead of science fiction.
While we can certainly agree to disagree, I do want to add short descriptions to these articles. if this is enough of an issue for you that you would revert that, we can take this to the short description talk page or start an RFC. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mercury (planet) does appear in Pisces (constellation) regularly. Joking aside: The thing is, they would never be at those titles. As a much better example, we have both List of tallest buildings in London, Ontario and List of tallest buildings and structures in London; the former would never be at the title for the latter, so we don't need a short description clarifying which London the latter refers to. TompaDompa (talk) 03:27, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The primary reason why WP:SDNONE applies to those two lists is because they are in the same field and that field is clearly identified in the title (see Wikipedia:Short_description#Purposes). The titles convey that both are cities and the articles are analyzing their tallest structures. Within that context, the English city is overwhelmingly going to win any primary topic argument. It's not as strong an argument as Thermopylae or the Loch Ness monster pages, but is still sufficient. London, Ontario is not particularly known for its tall buildings, and only two buildings on that list would even meet the minimum criteria on the other list. By contrast, this article title only refers to Pluto in fiction and in no way clarifies what field the article is about. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pluto_in_fiction&oldid=1204787185"