Talk:Space stations and habitats in fiction

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Keep, 5 August 2021, see discussion.
No Consensus, 31 July 2007, see discussion.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Popular Culture, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Popular CultureWikipedia:WikiProject Popular CultureTemplate:WikiProject Popular CulturePopular Culture articles

Science Fiction Mid‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Spaceflight: Space stations Low‑importance

	Spaceflight portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the space stations working group.

Untitled[edit]

Expansion as promised -- SockpuppetSamuelson 07:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:O'niel Cylinder.jpg[edit]

The image Image:O'niel Cylinder.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Space stations clean-up[edit]

The list has the heading "Classic Wheel Design", yet mostly contains non-wheel stations, such as the Death Star. Seems like breaking the section up into sub-headings is in order. Pfhreak (talk) 21:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Habitats clean-up[edit]

Only O'Neill cylinders are listed. Addition of sections for other designs, such as the Bernal sphere and Stanford torus seems to be warranted. Pfhreak (talk) 21:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

excessively specific nomenclature[edit]

A rotating toroid space station appears in You Will Go to the Moon, published 16 years before the Stanford design — a kids' book, so presumably the idea was already well established. So I object to describing a torus as a Stanford torus if it doesn't match in size or other specific features.

In particular, Varley's Titan is much bigger, and doesn't use solar mirrors! —Tamfang (talk) 07:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds convincing. Let`s see how one could rewrite the introduction to that section! --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 09:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While we're up, the heading Classic wheel design is a puzzler: several of the stations mentioned there (Death Star, Babylon 5, Venus Equilateral) are not wheels! —Tamfang (talk) 07:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So I renamed that section Space stations rotating for pseudogravity and moved the Death Star out of it. I hope that readers familiar with the examples will do likewise with those that don't belong. —Tamfang (talk) 07:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, doesn't the torus go back to the Wodenrad? IIRC, von Braun 1952. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stanford torus article mentions it had been suggested by Wernher von Braun and Herman Potočnik. Dream Focus 01:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

mass content removal[edit]

I object to the massive content removal in the middle of a deletion discussion. one of the recommendations is conversion to a list of.... @TompaDompa: —¿philoserf? (talk) 13:14, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removing large swaths of unsourced material should not be controversial. I'll do some more editing and then make further comments at the AfD discussion. TompaDompa (talk) 13:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Allowing a conversation to occur and editors time to find references for the unreferenced during an AfD discussion is a reason not to cut deep at that moment. —¿philoserf? (talk) 13:47, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having some sympathy for both sides of this argument, I just want to link, for ease of reference if anyone wants to re-include/work on it, the last version before the content removal. Daranios (talk) 19:40, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a list from [1] (CC-BY-SA) and now saw that there was this removal. The previous content seems to be a mix of two different approaches: summarizing VS listing ... I would suggest that the previous content had its qualities if its thuroughly a summarizing article, but it mixed lists inconsistently. I clearly went for the list approch by adding this list written by editors on the external site. Nsae Comp (talk) 21:00, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS: a clear logic/approach needs to be found, also in regard to any possible deletion and its discussion. Nsae Comp (talk) 21:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nsae Comp! I would think that a list of space stations which already have their own Wikipedia articles for navigation purposes as one of the usual list selection criteria, effectively paralleling Category:Fictional space stations, would be both nice to have and uncontroversial. Probably best as a list separate from our article here rather than a section within. I personally would find it great if such a list were to also allow the inclusion of fictional space stations which have garnered discussion in secondary sources (and by that criterion avoiding the criticism of listing all fictional space station like in TVTropes), but not enough to be notable as stand-alone articles. But that might be controversial and should probably be discussed beforehand. Daranios (talk) 10:35, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I totaly agree. Nsae Comp (talk) 20:55, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]