Talk:Space colonization

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Space colonization was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
August 22, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed

Earth Orbit and Lunar edits reverted why???[edit]

Noticed axed my contribs to Earth Orbit and Moon were axed (we know who), grounds: opinion. I feel the sentences I added were factual and obviously so. May I recommend reference to the corresponding main WP articles for the specific colonization targets.Wikkileaker (talk) 14:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps we should keep in mind that this entire article is speculative, and therefore "opinion". No one has ever built a space colony. It is a product of imagination only. Every single sentence here is mere "opinion". Disputable Wikipedia articles pertaining to hard science and politics should adhere to the standard of dry fact; however, articles like this one should be held to a looser standard because of their inherently speculative nature. The standard here should be that of being agreeable to sound judgment. The sentences I inserted meet this criterion soundly.

Strictly, this entire article is "opinion" and should be recommended for deletion along with all the other Space Colonization articles. Space colonies do not exist, and everything to be said about them is mere "opinion".Wikkileaker (talk) 13:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Two major issues with your edits: (A) Wikipedia may add opinions of experts supported by citations published in reliable sources. Wikipedia may not add opinions of wikipedians. (B) Please read our rules about inadmissible original research: a wikipedian cannot add various information about orbits, asteroid belts, etc. into this article, however correct and factual it may be, unless this information was discussed in published sources which specifically discuss space colonization. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Then this article is about to get a whole lot shorter.Wikkileaker (talk) 13:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Why is that a bad thing? Accuracy is more important than speculative verbiage. Andyjsmith (talk) 16:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Try reading my post again. I don't think we should need a PhD to state the obvious and the common sense. And just because an "expert" says something does not mean it's necessarily gospel. I can submit numerous examples of so-called "authorities" making the stupidest statements imaginable.Wikkileaker (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
      • Please don't even start. We hear this for 15 years now. We have the most fundamental content policies WP:V/ WP:NOR (and WP:NPOV) forged in countless battles of huge cohorts of wikipedians. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
        • Yeah you do sound pretty jaded so I'll not belabor the point, sound as it is. Gives me an idea for a book title: The Death of Common Sense. (oops, just checked Amazon & it's already taken. good thing book titles can't be copyrighted!)Wikkileaker (talk) 13:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)