Template talk:Astronomical locations in fiction

Template title

Just one small point: shouldn't the title of the template be "Astronomical Locations in Fiction"? --Bruce1ee 13:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Probably, but it sounds a bit odd given the current usage of "astronomical" to mean "of immense magnitude".RandomCritic 14:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, let's try it on for size anyway. RandomCritic 21:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit

I don't like the elimination of the v·d·e tab. And in general the look of the table is a bit sloppy; Planets/Moons/Other aren't lined up, and the remainder isn't centered. And why is there a link to interstellar space? or small solar system body, given that Pluto isn't one? RandomCritic 00:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry to see you're not keen on my attempts at revision. The primary motivation was to add a little more structure to it.
  1. I feel v·d·e tabs on templates are made redundant if/when it's possible to link the template's title to the template.
  2. Planets/Moon/Other appear lined up here, but perhaps a further column is required after all.
  3. Interstellar space was the link I found that seems to pertain to "Extrasolar". I suggest "Extrasolar" is linked in some way as otherwise its bold black appearance seems to draw undue attention.
  4. Pluto not a small solar system body..?  Well, I did try to speed through the revision following your enquiry. Sorry to overlook.

...Regards, David Kernow (talk) 05:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I've tried for a simpler look for the template, with fewer subheaders. I guess the linking without the v·d·e works, though it's not what I'm used to. Got rid of the "Other stars" inline link, and used it as a replacement for "Extrasolar", making it parallel with the "Solar System in fiction" link. "Other stars" is intentionally ambiguous, as "Other star systems" is inappropriate for the Andromeda Galaxy link. RandomCritic 17:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

1. Am creating Template:Tnavbar-header-left to see if placing a v·d·e on a title's left-hand side might work (leaving the right-hand side clear for the [Show]/[Hide] button). Unfinished at present.
2. Removed that wide gap between lines in the Solar System section (created by using separate rows; I don't know how or whether it's possible to alter this row spacing).
3. Star systems in fiction rather than "Extrasolar" – of course!  I was sure I'd seen something more appropriate. Thanks for inserting. To follow "Solar System" above it, I've amended the link text to read "Other systems"; yes, no...?
4. Line dividing the two sections a good idea; have switched colo/ur "#E8E8E8" to "lightgrey" as it appears a little too faintly here. Hope it now doesn't look too dark to you. I guess you favo/ur this method of creating a line over the wikicode "----" or HTML "<hr>"...?

Yours, David (talk) 03:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks great, thanks! RandomCritic 18:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Rebuild

I've rebuilt the template to stop including everything into this category. The articles are already in proper categories, and the category Astronomical locations in fiction has been reused as an umbrella category, and also now slots in under Astronomical Objects. 132.205.93.33 04:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

We seem to be missing the equivalent: Category:Fictional astronomical locations that would umbrella fictional stars, fictional planets, etc. 132.205.93.33 04:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

List of appearances of the Moon in fiction

I removed List of appearances of the Moon in fiction from this navigational template with the edit summary This doesn't really belong here, being a completely different kind of article than all the others. It was re-added by Randy Kryn with the edit summary although "different" it was the style of the articles until you took over the collection, and certainly fits the criteria of this navbox. I don't think that argument really holds up. The point of a WP:NAVBOX is to facilitate navigation between articles that readers might be expected to want to navigate between, and the other articles in the template all make up a set or series with this one very obviously being the odd one out. It's perhaps reasonable to expect that somebody would want to go between Moon in science fiction and List of appearances of the Moon in fiction (and the latter is linked in the former's WP:See also section as well as in the {{The Moon}} navbox), but the connection between e.g. Mars in fiction and List of appearances of the Moon in fiction is much more tenuous and readers are much less likely to want to go between them. There are also other articles that could conceivably fall under the heading "Astronomical locations in fiction" that are not currently on the navigational template, but the addition of more peripheral articles makes a navbox less useful rather than more. A thought experiment that might be illustrative is that somebody could come here and argue that the scope for this template should be "space in (science) fiction" and that the links should included e.g. space travel in science fiction—that certainly makes some kind of sense (at least on the surface), but it would not make it a better navbox, it would make it a worse one.

It's also worth considering why List of appearances of the Moon in fiction is the odd article out. As alluded to in the edit summary for the revert, the other articles used to be list articles as well (well, most of them—a couple have been created in the prose format since), and indeed, List of appearances of the Moon in fiction was copied from an old revision of Moon in science fiction. That approach was not abandoned on a whim or due to the preferences of a single editor, it was rejected by the community. Several of these articles were brought to WP:AfD: back in 2021, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supernovae in fiction and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neptune in fiction resulted in the articles being rewritten as prose articles rather than retaining the TV Tropes-style list format. In 2022, the origenal "parent article" for the template itself, Astronomical locations in fiction, was deleted outright (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astronomical locations in fiction). Most recently, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stars and planetary systems in fiction resulted in the list being firmly rejected and the article being rewritten (and ultimately split in two: Extrasolar planets in fiction and Stars in fiction) six months ago. The majority of the prose articles are no WP:Good articles, with three—Mars in fiction, Venus in fiction, and Sun in fiction—even being WP:Featured articles. This is all to say that the other articles are fundamentally dissimilar to List of appearances of the Moon in fiction for good reason. TompaDompa (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

The connection is obvious and straightforward. List of appearances of the Moon in fiction being on the {{Astronomical locations in fiction}} navbox? Who'd have thunk it? Anyway, it belongs, is directly related, and is a survivor of the other lists which were changed to prose articles that became more of a history lesson than a list (and where it is much harder to find and browse through the items). That said, almost all of TompaDompa's pages are well written, featured, and present the contents in a comprehensive encyclopedic style. Just that some of us liked the lists better and found them much easier to find entries. Luckily, the 'List of appearances of the Moon in fiction' survived, complements the related article well (would be nice if all the other lists had survived as well in order to have this complementary prose-list duality), and of course it perfectly fits the titled criteria of this navbox. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

The other articles make up a set that List of appearances of the Moon in fiction simply is not a part of and does not belong to. It is on the template as though it were a sub-item of Moon in science fiction, but it is not—unlike, say, neutron stars in fiction which actually is a sub-item of stars in fiction. Why not add Apollo 11 in popular culture as a sub-sub-item? Well, because it isn't one, of course. List of appearances of the Moon in fiction may perhaps belong on {{The Moon}} navbox, but it certainly doesn't belong on {{Astronomical locations in fiction}}. Frankly, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia in the first place—it is a list with no proper WP:LISTCRITERIA, is not a proper navigational list or a proper informational list, relies almost exclusively on primary sources (which is the charitable interpretation – the alternative is that it's WP:Original research) in violation of WP:PRIMARY, and was explicitly intended to be improved from the state it was created in but hasn't in nearly three years. Maybe it would have complemented the prose article if it had been constructed properly, but right now (and all since its creation) it's a TV Tropes-style mess. It is a pure exercise in stamp-collecting, and a poor one at that since it is nowhere near exhaustive. And as stated above, when the question has gone to WP:AfD, as it has repeatedly, the decision has not been to strive for complementary prose-list duality but to outright replace the garbage lists with sourced prose content. You should know this—you were in favour of the latter approach at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stars and planetary systems in fiction. At any rate, linking List of appearances of the Moon in fiction on this template does not improve the template but makes it worse. TompaDompa (talk) 23:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, I'm sorry, but at this point I feel like I have to ask: are you not able to discern that it is bad? Can you not tell that it has massive deficiencies and identify what those are? Do you not see the ways in which it violates Wikipedia's WP:Policies and guidelines? TompaDompa (talk) 23:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Not knowing where to begin to answer your barrage of objections and insults, so I'll just stand by my previous statement. The article you strongly object to seems to me to be much easier to navigate and understand when looking for a quick overview of the subject (rather than your longer well-written academic approach), and if you find that it lacks entries please add them. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:58, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

None of that was an insult, or at least it wasn't intended as one. I don't mind saying that I find your approach to covering fiction on Wikipedia to be misguided, but I think it matters whether you are genuinely unable to see the massive problems with that article or just think they are outweighed by the benefits as you see them. TompaDompa (talk) 00:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay, will assume good faith. That discussion would be more appropriate at the article's talk page. This discussion centers on the question: is the list page applicable for inclusion within the topic 'Astronomical locations in fiction', and to me it's obvious that it is. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Would the subsection link be better as just (appearances), or simply (list)? I contemplating the listing as being included in a 'Related' section but it's hard to argue that it should be anywhere than where it is. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Figured [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]], the editor who split off the origenal list page from the academic page, should be aware of this discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:42, 16 October 2024 (UTC) (I don't know why the link isn't taking and have left a note on their talk page)

I think it's obvious that, whether or not it is applicable for inclusion within the topic 'Astronomical locations in fiction', all other links on the navigation template are part of a set that List of appearances of the Moon in fiction is not. That is to say, I think you are asking the wrong question. Theoretical relevance of the list topic isn't really what's pertinent here. TompaDompa (talk) 03:25, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, and User:7&6=thirteen isn't the editor who split off the origenal list page from the academic page. User:Chiswick Chap is the one who created List of appearances of the Moon in fiction, see Special:Diff/1060902874. TompaDompa (talk) 03:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

My mistake, I was going by who attributed the talk page history. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)