Talk:Comets in fiction

Aren't Popular Movies Works of Fiction?

I looked on this page expecting to find an entry for one of my more favored movies, Deep Impact. I was surprised to find it was not here. Aren't most popular movies works of fiction? I can't believe I'm the first to think of it. People aren't that stupid. Well, maybe that deserves some qualification. Setting that aside, why isn't Deep Impact discussed on this page? -- Srwalden (talk) 04:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

The article isn't intended to be an exhaustive list of all fictional works where comets play an important role. With that said, I've added a mention of Deep Impact. TompaDompa (talk) 10:35, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Wait, there's no mention of Sozin's Comet from Avatar: The Last Airbender? I understand that this cannot be an exhaustive list, and that everything depends on available sources. Just wanted to say I am surprised, because it is a special example, from fantasy rather than sci-fi, and a very important element to a rather important show. Daranios (talk) 15:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Geethree (talk · contribs) 22:17, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of November 11, 2023, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Fail

Few to no egregious errors, though the copy is lengthy at times and difficult to parse. I think this needs substantial copy editing. For example:

In the 1900s, a successive shift occurred wherein comets were largely replaced by other objects such as asteroids in threatening harm to Earth, though cometary impact events continued to appear in works like Jack Bechdolt's 1920 novel The Torch, where it forms part of the backstory for the post-apocalyptic setting.

This sentence is both quite long and becomes vague. What does the "it" in "it forms part of..." refer to? The antecedent is unclear. If "it" refers to "cometary impact events," then that is a subject-verb disagreement and should be corrected.

In general, the sheer number of examples also makes this difficult to work through. As an example, the "Resources" section has no real thesis or topic sentence. It's just a list of examples with no context for why these are meaningful.

This article seems to be largely the work of one editor who has done an admirable job compiling examples and references. Perhaps that editor can take a copy editing pass to provide some focus and context, or another editor can jump in to do so.

For some specific cleanup categories that I think apply, see:

• Template:Excessive examples
• Template:Specific

2. Verifiable?: N/A

I didn't see any spurious or inaccurate citations. However, as most of the citations were just plot examples, I would expect them to be accurate.

In addition, this article overwhelmingly leans on three tertiary sources that are other encylopedias (Westfahl, Langford, and Stableford). Please remember that wikipedia should be based on secondary sources, per this page:

• Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources

3. Broad in coverage?: Fail.

I think this article, in very broad strokes, includes thorough coverage of the topic (ie, there are sections for the different ways in which comets are significant in fiction). However, there is no meaningful context for those sections. A list of examples is not itself "coverage."

4. Neutral point of view?: N/A

Technically I'd call this a "pass," but I don't think this article contains enough specific claims to say one way or the other. It is almost exclusively plot examples, which, sure, are "neutral" but I don't think it's meaningful to describe an article as neutral if it lacks information relating to the history and culture of these works and WHY they are important.

5. Stable?: Pass.

Edit history looks solid, and if anything this appears to a project of one editor for the most part.

6. Images?: Pass.

This article could certainly be dolled up with more images, but there is a flavorful header illustration and nothing in the article that suffers from lack of illustration.

Closing comments: There's nothing wrong with red links per se, but this article has a lot of them. It causes me to doubt the importance of the subject considering many of the examples do not themselves have their own pages. I believe the examples could be trimmed down, focusing on the most significant examples.

In addition, I think this article is extremely over-referenced (to its detriment). The vast majority of the copy is simple plot summaries or examples (rather than explaining, for instance, the broader significance of these works), often with multiple references. Plot summaries are rarely controversial, requiring multiple references.

I would suggest reviewing other pages of "[topic] in fiction" for examples of how to provide context. For example, Venus in fiction has a section titled "Paradigm shift," which provides a historical context before providing examples of fiction that reflect that context.

Finally, I would suggest revising how much this article leans on the first 3 references (Westfahl, Langford, and Stableford). Much of this article is heavily borrowed from those encyclopedias. Wikipedia should rely on secondary sources, not repeat tertiary sources (such as other encyclopedias).

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— Geethree (talk) 23:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments after the first GA Review

@Geethree: I'm guessing you meant to close the review. The way to do that is to put the {{FailedGA}} template on the talk page, not the review page. See WP:GAI. I have fixed it.[1][2]

Anyway, some responses to your comments:

• The topic sentence for the "Resources" section is Several stories depict the extraction of resources, mainly water, from comets.
• On the topic of having a large number of examples and relatively little context, I'll reiterate what I said at Talk:Saturn in fiction/GA1: It's always a balance with these types of articles. If I had my way the article would be wall-to-wall analysis of overarching trends, but the sources are unfortunately comparatively light on that and instead discuss individual examples more. The examples have all been selected from the works mentioned by the literature on the overarching topic, and a large number of additional works mentioned by the relevant literature have been omitted for brevity.
• Basing articles primarily on tertiary sources is not necessarily a problem, but more importantly for this page: these science fiction encyclopedias typically function as secondary rather than tertiary sources as they rely primarily on the works themselves, not secondary literature (as Andrew Davidson said at Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 73#Tertiary sources back in 2021: Encyclopedias of this sort are usually secondary sources, not tertiary ones, as their entries and thematic articles are based on the original works rather than some body of secondary scholarship.).
• I am very familiar with other "[topic] in fiction" articles, having written many of them myself including Mars in fiction and Sun in fiction. The example you give, Venus in fiction, was written by me and Piotrus. The reason that article (and specific section) gives a lot of historical context is that the sources on that topic do, and the reason this article does not is that the sources on this topic do not. The sources here give some historical context, but unfortunately not much.
• On the citation habits: Sources are necessary not only for WP:Verification, but also for establishing what's an important WP:ASPECT (and what's not). Articles are supposed to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject, and the only way to demonstrate that is to cite sources on the overarching subject (i.e. Comets in fiction). Other sources are used to supplement these when needed to verify e.g. specific plot details (the primary works could perhaps be cited for these details, but I think this approach is preferable).

I'll copyedit the article a bit and then renominate it. TompaDompa (talk) 03:54, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Passing comment. I am surprised this was GA-failed without waiting for the nominator to respond. And it is ironic that the reviewer tells the author to review as best practices... articles written by said author. I could say more, but let's keep WP:AGF in mind. I think this is pretty close to meeting GA criteria. I doubt TompaDompa missed much in sources - if something is not here, it probably isn't significantly covered. PS. I also wouldn't worry to much about red links, per WP:RED. A few works might be overlinked, but it's hard to say; I trust the author to have an idea what is notable and not, given their record. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:48, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Globalizing

Checking examples on interwikis might yield something (nothing from Polish sci-fi comes to mind). Some suggestions: comet plays a role in South Korean time travel movie Heaven's Soldiers and Japanese movie Your Name. Comet in Moominland (film) might also make for an interesting addition. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:01, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Hm. I did recently watch Comet in Moominland in the cinema, but none of the sources on the topic I have consulted make any mention of it (or the other ones you mention). The SFE entry for the 1989 Venus Wars film links to the "comets" entry, and it fits in nicely with the Double Planet example, so I added that one at any rate. TompaDompa (talk) 02:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

@TompaDompa How about Your Name? Some sources to consider: [3], [4]. There are some others (GScholar shows some thesis and such).

Ditto for Heaven's Soldiers (ex. [5]/[6]). This article could really benefit from mentioning Korea and Japan to be more globalized. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Das Science Fiction Jahr 2012 has an entry that the German Maddrax series features a somewhat unusual variant of a comet as the harbinger of the apocalypse. Daranios (talk) 14:41, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I did find an additional source specifically on how comets have been portrayed in fiction/popular culture, and it mentions the Comet in Moominland novel though not the film–I added it to the article. Not much luck when it comes to globalization beyond that, unfortunately. TompaDompa (talk) 21:58, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

The sources about the Korean movie can be used to show an example of the use of comet and time travel together. The Japanese story can be mentioned as an example of story driven by disaster brought by comet, or its impact. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

There is a story collection named "The Green Comet"/"Der Grüne Komet" by Herbert W. Franke, commented on by several secondary sources, like here ("a decisive turning point in German science-fiction") and at different places in Das Science Fiction Jahr 2023 ("certainly the best ever written by a German SF author"). Daranios (talk) 11:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Another potential source of interesting material: German Wikipedia has an article on de:Kometenfurcht (fear of comets), which on the one hand features popular reactions to comets throughout history, but also has a section on "Kometenfurcht" treated in German literature. Daranios (talk) 16:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Daranios Definetly relevant. Would be fun to translate (fear of comets) and DYK :) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Todays DYK actually led me to another non-English appearance of a comet in literature, with commentary of a type not yet in the article: Did you know that Swedish-speaking author Tove Jansson wrote a book name Comet in Moominland, where A History of Finland's Literature, p. 574, considers the comet "an allegory of nuclear weapons"? Daranios (talk) 16:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I added it a few days ago (see above). The nuclear weapons thing is also mentioned by the source I used, though it is mentioned rather in passing. TompaDompa (talk) 18:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@TompaDompa: Ah, good, I had missed that in searching for the nuclear aspect. Which is a new one, so maybe it's worth mentioning if we now have two sources for that, but I am sure you have the best overview what's warranted and what's not here. Daranios (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I've tried to find either an authoritative source saying that the comet in Comet in Moominland is an allegory (or metaphor, or similar phrasing) for nuclear weapons or a reliable source that explicitly says that it has widely been interpreted that way, thus far without success. I'll keep looking. This interpretation almost certainly warrants mentioning at the Comet in Moominland article, at any rate. TompaDompa (talk) 22:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Hm. It appears that the nuclear interpretation is not entirely uncontroversial or universally accepted. See e.g. https://helda.helsinki.fi/server/api/core/bitstreams/23abc4f4-361d-47f0-a129-c7639bd50c18/content and https://marsmombestmom.wordpress.com/comet-in-moominland/ – the latter of which (although clearly not a reliable source) says Comet in Moominland has clear contemporary connections to the second world war, in particular bomb raidings and the civilian perspective (Karjalainen, 2013, p. 142). A striking parallel could be drawn between the omni-present comet and looming threat of the newly invented atom bomb, but is rather a non-intended coincidence as the writing had already been finished by the time of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings (Westin, 2007, p. 195). So I think that settles it: the nuclear interpretation of Comet in Moominland should not be mentioned at this article. TompaDompa (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Here we can just mention that the comet is interpreted as connected to destruction or such, whereas more details you found should certainly be added to the book article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. Daranios (talk) 15:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I've added a brief Analysis section to Comet in Moominland based on our discussion. Feel free to tweak. Daranios (talk)

For what it's worth, Brian Stableford says in the "Comet" entry of Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia that "Comet fear" is a detectable historical phenomenon in writings from 1200 onwards. TompaDompa (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I will try to get around to working on this topic one day. But in the meantime, what about adding the Korean and Japanese examples? I provided RS and context above that should allow us to do so. Oh, and I randomly stumbole upon this: [7] about a comet-related work by Chinese writer Xu Xu. Perhaps also something from [8] will be of use (search for the word book). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the sourcing we have is sufficient to justify adding either Heaven's Soldiers or Your Name. The Japanese example we currently have—Venus Wars—is already a borderline case where we have a high-quality source (The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction), but not one focused on the overarching topic (it's not mentioned in the "Comets" entry). At least in that case it fits as an example of themes brought up by the sources on the overarching topic, but were it not for globalization concerns I don't see how its inclusion could be justified.

It would be great if we could find a source on comets being associated in fiction with what might perhaps be called anomalies in space and time, because there are other examples than the body swap/time travel ones in Your Name and Heaven's Soldiers such as Coherence (where it's parallel universes). I would love to add that as a theme, but absent sources on that aspect it would be my personal WP:ANALYSIS. TompaDompa (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Very tentatively and related to some other stuff we discussed recently, we can consider approaching SFE, suggesting some additions/revisions to their entry, and then it could be used as a source here. Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Good idea. My gut feeling is that supernatural occurrences (such as the usual laws of nature not applying) when a comet passes is a fairly common trope. That would also, I suppose, kind of describe Sozin's Comet from Avatar: The Last Airbender, brought up by Daranios above. And perhaps also Shadow of the Comet? The source I found was so vague about it. TompaDompa (talk) 13:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I am not familiar with that game, but it is certainly true for Shadowrun in general. The problem is how to get the Pyramid reviews, sigh. Ping User:BOZ (the reviews are linked below) - any ideas? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't have access to the full review, only the snippet on the website: [9] BOZ (talk) 12:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Personally I would say that, yes, both Sozin's Comet and Shadow of the Comet could fall under supernatural occurences tied to the appearance of a comet. More concretely, this magazine reveals as details: "Three days and three nights is all you have to free the world from the curse which hangs over it, for when the Comet passes again, Cthulhu and the Great Ancients will return." Alas, this seems to be an advertisment, i.e. primary source. Daranios (talk) 19:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

In games

Unrelated to globalizing, but there here's an example from comets in classic RPGs (Shadowrun): [10]/[11]. Wonder if something more would be available in German (ping User:Daranios). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Brief comments on Halley's comet in Shadowrun's Year of the Comet appear in Designers & Dragons: The 00s, p. 362, and Backstab #33, p. 107. Daranios (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Shadow of the Comet is another game where a comet is both in the name and a story element, though it might be hard to find secondary sources dicussing the comet's role extensively as most reviews avoid spoiling too much. @Piotrus: Ahm, what specifically would you like me to search for in German: Comments on those Shadowrun modules, comments on comets in RPGs or, ...? Daranios (talk) 16:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Daranios I was thinking Shadowrun stuff, since AFAIK SR is very big in Germany. (I am also very surprised we have no stand-alone articles on most of SR books - I wonder if de wiki has more than we do... although a quick glance at de:Liste der Shadowrun-Romane) suggests this is not the case. In either case, I would think if reliable reviews or coverage exist outside English, German would be my first bet (for SR stuff). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Indeed Shadowrun is a big thing in Germany, although I personally only had little interaction with it. I am also not the best in finding game magazine articles. What I could find is the following:

• Online magazine review of the German version of Year of the Comet, brief discussion of the comet
• Online magazine review of the German version of Wake of the Comet, discussing that this adventure fits squarely into the Expeditions section here
• I forgot, AD&D also had an adventure named Tale of the Comet, with Casus Belli #109, p. 18 featuring a review; not much about the comet itself, brings sci-fi into the game's fantasy (and it seems was even novelized)
• In Gadget (video game) the mood of mystery is increased by a radio message on a comet's collision of unclear veracity according to the review by Dragon magazine. Daranios (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I have expanded a bit about games using some sources I have found recently. There are now mentions of, among others, Warhammer. TompaDompa (talk) 16:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Good. But why not Shadowrun? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:11, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Not mentioned by any of the sources on the overarching topic I consulted. Shadow of the Comet, mentioned by Daranios actually is—but described so vaguely that it's difficult to find a good spot to say something about it. TompaDompa (talk) 13:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Comets in fiction/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cessaune (talk · contribs) 05:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll review this. It'll probably take about two weeks. Thanks! Cessaune [talk] 05:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Cessaune? TompaDompa (talk) 13:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I was very busy, both on enwiki and offline. Will be done by 7:00 UTC on Feb 3. Cessaune [talk] 15:05, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

1) My eyes hurt. Red and blue everywhere. I don't know what to focus on. I find the prose very hard to read because of this. That said, Venus in fiction and Sun in fiction, if I recall correctly, were TFAs in the past, and they look the exact same. And, at the very least, either the people are notable enough to already their own article, or the fiction they wrote is notable enough to already have its own article. I'm not going to do the work of figuring out whether or not each and every individual red-linked book is worthy of a mention outside of their author's bio, but I would imagine that not all of them deserve a standalone article. For the purposes of this GA review, I'm just going to ignore that fact.

2) Are there any more images? The image currently present in the article is great, and another one would be even better. The addition of an image of a real comet (Halley's comet, for example) would add a lot.

3) The sourcing is good. I don't have anything negative to say about the prose. It's well-written.

Normally I have a lot to say. You have clearly put a lot of work into this article and topic. I hope to one day see the featured topic Solar system in fiction or something similar, which would require a Planet Nine in fiction article at the very least.

I you have no questions I will go ahead and pass this GA review. Cessaune [talk] 12:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Venus in fiction and Sun in fiction were indeed WP:Today's featured article fairly recently, and Mars in fiction before that (back in August); all three were written by me, in the case of Venus in fiction together with Piotrus. I am working on a Solar System in fiction WP:Good topic (for starters; I hope to be able to turn it into a WP:Featured article eventually), though I am not at present able to commit as much time to it as I would like; Planet Nine will likely be covered in a revamped version of Fictional planets of the Solar System. I added an image of Halley's Comet. Just to make sure: you did conduct a spot-check of the sources for verification and copyright issues, right? TompaDompa (talk) 12:49, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Y I did briefly scan all of the sources. None of them are flagged by the sourcing bot I have installed. No plagiarism or copyvio issues. All of the text is verified by the sources as far as I'm aware. Cessaune [talk] 12:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Great! I ask because it occasionally comes to light that reviewers have not spot-checked the sources, and in some cases the reviews have been declared invalid (and the articles put back in the list of unreviewed nominations). Noting in the review that a spot-check has been done (or demonstrating that sources have been checked by commenting on specific issues that have come to light by doing so) can avoid a fair amount of headache for everyone involved by removing any doubt. TompaDompa (talk) 13:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@Cessaune: Was there anything else? TompaDompa (talk) 17:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

If you don't have anymore questions, then the article has passed. Cessaune [talk] 17:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Splendid. To finish the review, you need to replace the GAN template on the talk page with the GA template (see WP:GAN/I#PASS); it seems inappropriate for me, as the nominator, to do so. TompaDompa (talk) 18:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'm doing it currently. What topic does this fall under? Cessaune [talk] 18:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I would say Wikipedia:Good articles/Language and literature#Genres and literary theory (same as e.g. Mercury in fiction). TompaDompa (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Yikes I'm tired. Sorry! Cessaune [talk] 20:53, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't want to throw a wrench into the review, as I think the article is overall at GA level, but I believe I've identified some missing aspects and relevant sources (see discussions sections on the talk page above), and it would be good to address them before the review closes. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll reply to the specific points in their respective talk page sections. In short, I think it is fair to say, based on the sources on the overarching topic, that the main aspects are covered at present. I nevertheless intend to expand the article somewhat in the coming few days using some additional sources I've located. TompaDompa (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

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 PrimalMustelid talk 04:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Halley's Comet

• ... that comets such as Halley's (pictured) are living entities in several works of fiction? Source: See the references in the second paragraph of Comets in fiction#Cometary life.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Penelope (platypus)
  • Comment: I am open to rephrasing the hook to make it more catchy.

Improved to Good Article status by TompaDompa (talk). Self-nominated at 21:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Comets in fiction; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• This is a potentially great hook. I think "living entity" is slightly unclear, and I had to double check to make sure it meant what I thought it did. The article says it more clearly: "Comets themselves are alive in some works". Is there another way to write the hook, to be more clear? Shooterwalker (talk) 14:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  Certainly.

  • ALT1: ... that comets such as Halley's (pictured) are alive in several works of fiction? Source: See the references in the second paragraph of Comets in fiction#Cometary life.

  TompaDompa (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

• We are now at a good point in terms of clarity, and I'm wondering if this would be more concise and catchy:

ALT2: ... that Halley's Comet (pictured) is a living creature in several works of fiction?

I would approve ALT1 or ALT2, or even some variation. Do you have a preference? Shooterwalker (talk) 20:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Works for me. I added italics and boldface markup to ALT2, for the record. TompaDompa (talk) 20:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Excellent. Approved ALT2. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

The planet diagram at the see also section

The caption doesn't sound right. Of course, we could try saying something like: "Click on a planet to learn more about its depiction in fiction", but that would break MOS:YOU. What should we do? TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 03:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I think it's fine (but then I would, as I'm the one who came up with the current phrasing). The same phrasing is used across all articles that use this image map, including three articles that have been through the WP:Featured article process: Mars in fiction, Venus in fiction, and Sun in fiction. Indeed, it was during Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mars in fiction/archive1 that the current phrasing was settled upon. TompaDompa (talk) 06:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

This article has changed for the worse

If I recall correctly, it used to have a short intro for each section, stating a general rule, followed by examples. Now each section is a singla mass of examples, which is much harder to read. It should also include Mark Twain, who believed, or pretended to believe, that he came and left on Halley's comet. His satirical story "Captain Stormfield's Visit to Heaven" has the titular character riding a comet. But most of all the article needs better readability. Wastrel Way (talk) 14:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)Eric

How far back are we talking? Is this version from 2021 more-or-less what you are talking about? TompaDompa (talk) 14:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

On Twain: his birth and death coinciding with the appearances of Halley's Comet is not really an instance of comets in fiction, though it is a somewhat amusing piece of trivia. That being said, I'll see if I can find a good spot to mention "Extract from Captain Stormfield's Visit to Heaven". TompaDompa (talk) 14:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

You know what, I've added both the story and the Halley thing. The latter is a bit borderline, but it is actually something that (some) sources on comets in fiction deem relevant to include for context. And it's kind of thematically related. If somebody else thinks it falls on the wrong side of including loosely relevant information, however, I wouldn't object to its removal. TompaDompa (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)