Talk:Asteroids in fiction

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

"1 Ceres in fiction" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect 1 Ceres in fiction has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 21 § 1 Ceres in fiction until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 20:36, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Globalizing[edit]

1) Niewiadowski, Andrzej; Smuszkiewicz, Antoni (1990). Leksykon polskiej literatury fantastycznonaukowej (in Polish). Wydawn. Poznańskie. ISBN 978-83-210-0892-9 mentions a short story by Polish writer Witold Perkowicz (no pl wiki article yet) in his short story "Posłanie z piątej planety" (no pl wiki article yet but there is one for the anthology with the same title it was published in: Posłanie z piątej planety [pl]). They discuss it briefly saying that the story contains a sf explanation of the formation of an asteroid belt in Solar System, and they use this work as one of the exmaples of sf work that try to posit a scientific hypothesis for various phenomena. Actually you can see this entry, partially attributed this time, at https://encyklopediafantastyki.pl/index.php?title=Powie%C5%9B%C4%87_hipotezy Note the second example related to Tunguska event (pl:Witold Zegalski has article, his short story not yet), which does not seem to be mentioned in our article yet? It probably should have its own paragraph. More recently in Polish sf, Tunguska event is part of the setting of Dukaj's Ice (Dukaj novel). Plenty of sources for Dukaj: [1]. Note [2] which also helps with general context: "The Tunguska event of 1908 in central Siberia has provoked and inspired numerous theories"

2) anime: Knights of Sidonia [3]/[4]/[5], Cowboy Bebop (in particular, episode 'Asteroid Blues' [6], see also sources [7]) and Asteroid in Love come to mind. The first one is set on a hollowed asteroid spaceship/colony. The second one features asteroids in various episodes as locations or navigational hazards. Third one, see plot. There is more but I don't think there are RS for stuff like https://gineipaedia.com/wiki/Category:Asteroids or https://gundam.fandom.com/wiki/Palau / https://gundam.fandom.com/wiki/Axis , those may have to wait for SFE updates... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Tunguska event is something of a tricky one to fit in here, because it hardly gets a mention by sources on the topic of asteroids in fiction. It does get mentioned by a couple of sources that discuss both fact and fiction—in the fact part of the text, as background. When its appearance in fiction gets mentioned by sources on other topics, it is often revealed to have some other cause (aliens or whatever). There's also the question of whether this belongs on a page about asteroids in fiction, as opposed to meteors/meteoroids/meteorites in fiction (or comets in fiction, for that matter—some sources mention it in a cometary context). I don't think it's a good idea to try to cover asteroids and meteors/meteoroids/meteorites in the same article, because while the asteroid–meteoroid distinction is a sliding scale, the "shooting star" phenomenon is really a completely different subject (for the record, Brian Stableford's Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia has one entry for "Asteroid" on pp. 40–41 and another for "Meteorite" on pp. 301–303, while Gary Westfahl's Science Fiction Literature through History: An Encyclopedia has one entry for "Asteroids" on pp. 139–141 and another for "Comets and Meteoroids" on pp. 205–207). I'm inclined to think we should have an impact events in fiction article, which I might work on when I'm done with this article and could incorporate material from both this article and comets in fiction, as well as others. We do however have a Tunguska event in popular culture article (though it is absolutely terrible at present), which I have linked in the "See also" section for now. I have also watchlisted that article (and its redirect Tunguska event in fiction—I'm inclined to think it should be moved back there) and may work on it in the future. TompaDompa (talk) 12:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have created an impact events in fiction article (currently, a stub). Feel free to add to it. TompaDompa (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look at the sources for globalizing later. TompaDompa (talk) 12:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I have added Knights of Sidonia to the article as an example of converting asteroids into spacecraft. I think that will have to do for now. The explanation for the asteroid belt thing seems to be about the Phaëton hypothesis, which is well-covered in the article. TompaDompa (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unrealistic depiction in film/tv[edit]

I recall some sources discussing how sf films and tv show unrealistically dense asteroid fields for stunning visuals and various plot points like navigating through asteroid fields (Star Trek, possibly The Expanse, Star Wars, etc.). Might be worth mentioning if we can locate those sources. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See the "Navigational hazard" section. I'll see if I can find sources discussing the visual appeal aspect. TompaDompa (talk) 11:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

Passed. Ghosts of Europa (talk) 05:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Nominator: TompaDompa (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Ghosts of Europa (talk · contribs) Hello! I've enjoyed your previous articles on planets and the Sun in fiction. Looking forward to reviewing this! 04:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

This is a very entertaining and educational article!

  • No edit warring.
  • Good images with captions and permissive licenses.
  • Neutral.
  • This does a great job providing enough scientific background for me to understand these topics, without going overboard with detail. It remains clear and focused throughout.
    • It could use a working definition of "asteroid". The wikilink to asteroid is kind of misleading. That article says an asteroid orbits within the inner Solar System, but this article uses a broader definition that includes asteroids from the Oort cloud and other Solar Systems (e.g. in The Empire Strikes Back).
      • That's a rabbit hole I would prefer not going down. Part of the explanation is that the sources of course do not stay strict with their definitions. Asteroids in other systems and in the Oort cloud are really anomalies in this context, and I've tried to make that clear in the text of the article. If you want me to I could remove the Oort cloud example, though I do think it adds value to the article. I could perhaps define asteroids as "medium-sized rocks in space" or something along those lines, but I think that raises more questions than it answers, and I think a plain link to asteroid is better. I really don't want to get into the details about dwarf planets, minor planets, and so on here—it gets very confusing very fast for the average reader, and is not necessary to understand the topic of fictional depictions of asteroids. TompaDompa (talk) 08:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair point on risking excessive detail. I found the Oort cloud reference a bit disorienting, but I can't claim the article would be better without it. If you think a full definition would be too messy, maybe include a footnote for the Oort cloud example, or an introductory clause, or say something like "asteroid-like objects from the Oort cloud"? I don't know my astronomy well enough to offer a clear solution. In any case, this isn't worth holding the GA over :) Ghosts of Europa (talk) 05:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prose is definitely GA quality, and I didn't catch any errors. You don't have to change anything for this review!
    • That said, if you don't mind some feedback, I think this article is more difficult to read than it needs to be. It uses some very complex sentence structures, and it often discusses multiple works in a single sentence when it's not clear they're tightly linked. Personally, I find this readability script from Phlsph7 extremely helpful. Here's how I would split up a complex sentence without radically rewriting it:
      • Later works mostly recognize that the individual asteroids are very far apart—the average distance between them being comparable to the Earth–Moon distance—and accordingly pose little danger to spacecraft, though this need not necessarily be the case in asteroid fields outside of our Solar System -> Later works mostly recognize that the individual asteroids are very far apart: the average distance between two asteroids is similar to the distance between Earth and the Moon. Accordingly, asteroid belts pose little danger to spacecraft, although this is not necessarily the case outside of our Solar System.
  • No copyvio concerns. Earwig gives a 13% match, almost certainly just because of all the proper name titles.
  • Well cited with no OR. I spot checked 15 citations and found no issues of plagiarism, source-text integrity, unsourced claims, or anything else.

Great work! Ghosts of Europa (talk) 05:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 Launchballer talk 07:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Improved to Good Article status by TompaDompa (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 20 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

TompaDompa (talk) 10:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Extremely nice and well done article about Asteroids in fiction. I am myself an avid reader of SF, but after reading this article I see myself as a novice. Length and time of creation are ok, the article seems to be well sourced through reference works (AGF assumed on references referring to non reachable pages) hook is cited and interesting, no obvious copyvio detected. QPQ has been done. Good to go! And now I am going to read the other articles of this author... Alex2006 (talk) 15:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you, that's very kind. You may have noticed Comets in fiction currently on the WP:Main page as the DYK picture hook today. Otherwise, I would consider Mars in fiction my magnum opus, as it were. I would also like to spotlight Venus in fiction, which I can only take partial credit for as it was written in collaboration with Piotrus. TompaDompa (talk) 15:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Red Links[edit]

I know this is a pretty recent GA, and I'm not asking for any re-evaluation or anything, but is this many red links standard in an article? Typically those are removed or not used at all. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 13:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On topics like this, yes. The gaps in our coverage of science fiction are unfortunately substantial. On the flip side, that means that there are a lot of potential articles to write for anyone interested in doing so. TompaDompa (talk) 13:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asteroids_in_fiction&oldid=1220386139"