Talk:Mars in fiction/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Sections, please!

This article is a big ugly list of stories and movies, and it seriously needs revision into sections with actual content and history. I may be able to get to this soon, but if someone else is motivated, please write! —ZorkFox 03:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Correction

Moving Mars was incorrectly listed as being published in 1973. I corrected the date to 1993 and moved it to the appropriate place chronologically. —jonnygoldstein 16:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

transformers

can we add something related to Transformers the 2007 movie?? watched that scene? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.11.247 (talk) 05:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

santa on mars

santa claus conquers the martians- one of the worst films ever. Despite the fact that I am laughing uncotrollably, isnt "one of the worst films ever" uncyclopaedic?? Of course I cant do a movie review because havent seen it. P.S. tell NASA the santa can transport their new mars probe :-) T.Neo 16:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Flash gordoncomic.jpg

Image:Flash gordoncomic.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Rationale has since been added. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Stranger in a Strange Land

Perhaps the most read book of Martians after War of the Worlds, missing... please add it, thanks. ---Ransom (--71.4.51.150 (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC))

Aria

This page needs a reference to the paper manga and animes series / OAV "Aria" (Aria the animation, Aria the Natural, Aria the Origination, Arietta). Takes place in a future where Mars has been terraformed and mainly flooded , and focuses on slices of life of a young gondola rower in a rebuild venice. --212.27.60.48 (talk) 19:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 17:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Marvinthemartain.jpg

The image Image:Marvinthemartain.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. --01:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

But but but ya' gotta' have Marvin!

I've tried to fix the non-free media rationale, and have re-added the image. Hopefully this meets with the wikigods approval. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 17:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Possibly ambiguous, may need cleanup: The god or the planet?

A new bullet was just added to the Computer and video games section. While I don't disagree with the addition, I wasn't clear reading the text whether the god or the planet was referred to.

Then it dawned on me that the article really never seems to specifically state the subject (planet or god) (unless I missed it), particularly in the title, and it could be misconstrued. You kinda' have to skim the whole article to realize it's about the planet not the god.

Then again, why not the god as well? I suggest that at least we either make the subject clear in the lead paragraph that the article is about the planet not the god, or add a section for 'Mars the god' in the article. The article may need to be re-named, since there could actually be lots of references to the god, not the planet, and the article is already a bit long for comfort as it is. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 17:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate unreferenced template

The unreferenced template does not belong here. The books are references for themselves. If no one objects, I will remove it. --Fartherred (talk) 19:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Journey Into Space

Shouldn't the immensely popular BBC serial "Journey into Space" be added to the radio list?AT Kunene (talk) 18:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Mars in Movies

There are a number of movies about Mars, some quite famous, that could be added. e.g.

"Conquest of Space" "Rocketship XM" "IT! The Terror from Space"

comment added by 2601:C:8B80:59C:946C:983D:9B13:E204 (talk) 02:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I can find no mention in the article (or on WP) of the previous "Mission to Mars" film on which the 2000 one is based. I remember going to see the original at the cinema in the late 1960s or 70s. It was a very low-budget film (motor-bike helmets for space helmets). Does anyone know how to discover the details ? Thanks for any help. Darkman101 (talk) 07:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mars in fiction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150424204508/http://grrm.livejournal.com/289356.html to http://grrm.livejournal.com/289356.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mars in fiction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050223131354/http://www.ithl.org.il/author_info.asp?id=165 to http://www.ithl.org.il/author_info.asp?id=165
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100728232032/http://hbpiper.wikispaces.com/Martian to http://hbpiper.wikispaces.com/Martian

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:56, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Mars (Doctor Who) appears to be little more than fancruft. If this article has any useful content, then it belongs here. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 08:28, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Support: I agree, having a separate article for Mars in one show (albeit a notable show) is not necessary at all. Nice catch, I would never have noticed this in the sea of wikipedia articles. Good job. Ghinga7 (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 17:14, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

GA?

Think we can get this to GA in the foreseeable future? I'd be happy to help. Ping User:TompaDompa. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:09, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, I'm planning on it. I have a bunch of notes on things I plan to expand the article with (mainly the "Terraforming" and "Nostalgic depictions" sections) and then I'm going to nominate it for WP:Good article status. I'm hoping to be able to do so by next week, barring unforeseen circumstances. Assuming it passes, the next step will be a WP:Peer review and then hopefully WP:Featured article nomination (it would be nice to have a featured "in fiction" article to point to as an example to follow). TompaDompa (talk) 10:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Quick comment. We don't mention Cowboy Bebop. Just like Venus, it also portrayed Mars. Perhaps the same source we use in Venus in fiction would be of use here? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:11, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Benji man (talk · contribs) 14:39, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Sorry this review took so long -- great article! The thoroughness of the referencing is deeply impressive. Pass! Benji man (talk) 15:48, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Merger proposal (2)

Phobos and Deimos in fiction has a small introductory paragraph with proper references, and then loads of unreferenced references to videogames, novels, TV series and similar. I propose to merge the little that deserves merging into this article, and then redirect it here. There's no need to set apart Mars and its moons when talking about their impact in fiction. Cambalachero (talk) 13:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed except I don't see anything worth merging at present (the information that is both pertinent and properly sourced is already covered here). I've been working on this article for a while now and intended to redirect Phobos and Deimos in fiction here when I was done. I'll do that now since this should be uncontroversial. TompaDompa (talk) 14:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Just to say I agree with both of you. "Make it so!" (Tugs shirt). Billyshiverstick (talk) 02:51, 1 January 2023 (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 Bruxton (talk) 18:36, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the first fictional depiction of the moons of Mars predates their actual discovery by a century and a half? Source: Swift writes that the astronomy-loving Laputians had discovered 'two lesser stars, or satellites, which revolve about Mars', which raced around the planet in 10 hours and 21.5 hours respectively. Gulliver's Travels was written in 1726, over 150 years before the discovery of Mars's moons, Phobos and Deimos. (4th Rock from the Sun: The Story of Mars)
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/5-Aminoimidazole ribotide
  • Comment: I'm open to alternative hooks.

Improved to Good Article status by TompaDompa (talk). Self-nominated at 04:16, 11 December 2022 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @TompaDompa: Good article. Hook is interesting, article is sourced, and the QPQ is done. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:22, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

See also at top

Should the see also template be at the top or in a See Also section at the bottom? ✶Mitch199811✶ 02:45, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I think the latter option makes more sense. I made the change. TompaDompa (talk) 02:56, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Just checked the template page, it clearly states that it should not be used before the lead. ✶Mitch199811✶ 02:59, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

The Day the Earth Stood Still

It is somewhat inexplicable that this article states in a couple of places that Klaatu from the 1951 science fiction film is a Martian. This isn't obvious on viewing the film, and it isn't mentioned in any of the related Wikipedia articles. Is this some sort of headcanon? Pharos (talk) 16:59, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Sources on the topic identify Klaatu as Martian. For instance, Gary Westfahl says in The Stuff of Science Fiction: Hardware, Settings, Characters (chapter: "Mars—Reading Mars: Changing Images of the Red Planet", page 151) that when Klaatu of the original The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951) twice asserted his journey to Earth had taken 250,000,000 miles, and that his planet and Earth were "neighbors," he effectively communicated that Mars was his home planet, since Mars is the only known planet that is ever 250,000,000 miles from Earth (when the planets are in opposition). TompaDompa (talk) 19:22, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Interesting! As far as I can tell from quick research, this aspect was not in the original "Farewell to the Master" inspiration, and was sparked by a pre-production note from Darryl F. Zanuck's to name the film as The Man From Mars. This development relic also appears glancingly as a depicted newspaper headline, may have influenced the actor's portrayal, and was actually used as the title for the Swedish release. So at one stage of its development, it does appear that an explicit Mars connection was intended. But this did not fully survive to the final version, and therefore I would quite question e.g. a prominent photo captioned as "the Martian who visits Earth in the 1951 film". Pharos (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I think the distance makes it explicit enough, and more importantly, so do our sources. I'm not necessarily opposed to replacing the image with a different one if there are good alternatives, but I would be opposed to plain removing it. The main reason that particular image was chosen is that it is in the public domain. TompaDompa (talk) 21:40, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can see of academic critics, it's just Westfahl that is making that explicit connection. I guess, inspired by his own astronomical savvy, he was able to detect an earlier layer in the palimpsest of the screenplay. The great majority of reliable sources about the 1951 film, however, appear to make no mention of Mars at all, and so I would be reluctant to say that a "Martian" is the protagonist of its plot. Presumably in the final draft/edit they decided to not name a specific planet to make it more realistic. Pharos (talk) 03:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The majority of RSes seem to describe Klaatu and Gort as coming from an "unnamed planet", which is sort of a science fiction trope in itself.--Pharos (talk) 16:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

For the context of this article, Mars in fiction, we have a character that was apparently written to be from Mars, acted to be from Mars ("Michael Rennie was proud of his distinctive role, but initially approached the character of Klaatu with some uncertainty. 'How do you play a man from Mars?' Rennie said."), identified as being from Mars by a scholar of science fiction (and others, for that matter—"The best clue to their decision would be Klaatu's reference to travelling 250 million miles, the approximate distance between Earth and Mars when the planets lie in opposition", "the refined Martian Klaatu (...) Klaatu enters his spaceship to return to Mars", "a Martian named Klaatu", "He says he has travelled 250 million miles of space, which implies Mars", and so on), and analysed as part of the tradition of portraying Martians as enlightened by said scholar. That Mars is identified indirectly rather than named outright does not seem terribly relevant in this context; the same thing can be said of The Man Who Fell to Earth, where the title character's origin is generally accepted to be Mars (as The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction says, "the only plausible candidate is Mars"). TompaDompa (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The Paradiso

I'm sorry for bugging you again but I want to mention that Divine Comedy mentions Mars in the Paradiso. It is a location where men who died for Christianity exist(?). ✶Mitch199811✶ 16:11, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Interesting. None of the sources on the topic that I've surveyed mention this (at least that I can recall). TompaDompa (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Our Wikipedia article has a section on it here: Paradiso (Dante)#Fifth Sphere (Mars: The Warriors of the Faith). Not that it's exactly science fiction, but it is referring to Mars as a sort of physical place so I guess it counts to some extent. There is perhaps a through-line that could be drawn on the warlike associations of the planet Mars in some fiction, as well as of the god in classical mythology. Pharos (talk) 03:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

If we are to mention Dante's Mars in this article, we really need sources that discuss Dante's Mars in the context of fictional depictions of Mars. As for the connection between the god of war and the depiction of the red planet in fiction, some authors bring it up more-or-less in passing, but there's way less outright analysis/discussion than I might have expected. I added a brief sentence, at any rate. TompaDompa (talk) 00:20, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

"Mars (Doctor Who)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Mars (Doctor Who) 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/2023 June 21 § Mars (Doctor Who) until a consensus is reached. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:56, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

"Pomang" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Pomang 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/2023 July 3 § Pomang until a consensus is reached. CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:11, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

"Martian Congressional Republic." listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Martian Congressional Republic. 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/2023 August 4 § Martian Congressional Republic. until a consensus is reached. TompaDompa (talk) 22:47, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:Short description

@Patar knight, Mike Christie, and Cambalachero: The short description has been changed thrice in short order, from "none" to "Depictions of the planet" to "Fictional depictions of the planet" and back to "none". I rather agree with the rationale for "none", personally. "Mars in fiction" clearly defines the topic and needs no further clarification. The only possible point of confusion is if somebody thinks it refers to some other "Mars" (e.g. the deity or candy bar) than the planet, but it is implausible that such an article would be at the title "Mars in fiction" in much the same way as it would be implausible for any article about London, Ontario to be at a X in/of London title (which means that articles at such titles don't need to clarify that they are about London). Previous discussion can be found at Talk:Pluto in fiction#Short description. TompaDompa (talk) 13:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

While I agree that the planet is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, the test for WP:SDNONE requires that the title be sufficiently detailed that a short description would not be helpful. The example cited is Alpine skiing at the 1960 Winter Olympics – Men's downhill, which is 100% unambiguous. The test for using SDNONE in articles of the "X in Y/Y of X" type is stricter than X simply being the primary topic when Y is itself a broad term. Since Greco-Roman gods have been depicted in fiction since classical antiquity and those depictions are of encyclopedic interest, SDNONE would not apply in this case.

"Fictional" is also not necessary per WP:SDDUPLICATE, since the title already makes it clear that these are depictions in fiction. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

So many red 'links'

Seems odd for a featured article to contain so many 'links' to pages that don't exist.51.52.43.171 (talk) 11:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

This was discussed at the FAC nomination, and TompaDompa thought that the red links in the article where notable articles. I think if you start searching for sources you'll find most could be turned into decent articles (As an example, Kusma created Alice Ilgenfritz Jones from a red link in this article). Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 12:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. I have also made articles for Romance on Four Worlds (linked here as "Romance with Phobic Variations"), "The Old Cosmonaut and the Construction Worker Dream of Mars", Bellona's Husband: A Romance, A Honeymoon in Space, Science-Fiction: The Gernsback Years, A Narrative of the Travels and Adventures of Paul Aermont among the Planets, Imagining Mars: A Literary History, and A Plunge into Space, turning a bunch of WP:REDLINKS in the article blue. TompaDompa (talk) 14:26, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

That's for sure! While some authors may be easier and more appropriate to make articles for, individual short stories and novels less so, and the excessive amount of red links is distracting and makes it appear the article is overweighting less significant works. There's not a reasonable expectation this many pages, particularly short stories that are in general less likely to be notable by themselves. Reywas92^Talk 14:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Short stories have a particularly important place in the history in science fiction, where a large portion of the influential early genre writing was in magazines like Astounding Science Fiction. I agree that there are a bunch of red links here; there's also a bunch of missing articles in historical SF especially. If there are specific examples that clearly don't meet notability, they can be removed, but I'd point out their inclusion in the sources here is itself indictive of possible notability. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 15:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I did a little bit of preliminary research into a few of the red links (especially the pre-1900 stuff) and there seemed to be ample material to write decent articles. Red links are invitations to write articles, and it seems to be worth doing for many of these. —Kusma (talk) 16:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

See WP:RED. Red is good. Make it blue. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:27, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Note as well that, if short stories do not have independent notability, we can always link instead to a section of an article or list that discusses it, turning it blue for the time being. Redirects with potential to become standalone articles may still be listed at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Arts and entertainment/Literature and Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/ArticlesNeeded. Cambalachero (talk) 18:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

'00s years

In my understanding, "the 1900s" would refer to the decade of 1900–1909, but in this article it appears to be used to mean the 20th century instead, and likewise for other centuries. Is this an established convention in the relevant field? Otherwise, I don't see why the article should refer to year periods in such a confusing way. --Paul_012 (talk) 02:48, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, Paul_012. In fact, the very 1900s article you link to the establishes that the WP:COMMONNAME is "20th century". Likewise, it is common practice now to refer to the "noughts" and nobody assumes it is the enture 21st century. So, yes, any unusual uses of "1900" need to be edited out. Go right ahead! XavierItzm (talk) 04:11, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The 1900s can refer to the decade 1900–1909 or the century 1900–1999 (the latter is not quite the same as the twentieth century, which is 1901–2000; see e.g. 1800s). This is an established practice in general, and the article uses this scheme throughout. TompaDompa (talk) 04:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, WP:COMMONNAME prevails unless you can prove in detail that use of the commonly accepted name breaks the text or is somehow incompatible with the sources. Wikipedia "generally prefers the name that is most commonly used" (per policy) and you would have to change the title of the article 1900s otherwise. XavierItzm (talk) 04:22, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME has nothing to do with this since it is about article titles (as is the quote you give) whereas this is about article text. The WP:Manual of Style explicitly allows for using "1900s" to refer to 1900–1999. TompaDompa (talk) 04:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Woah, that's a stretch. MOS:CENTURY, while it may allow suboptimal uses in special cases, clearly specifies "When using forms such as the 1900s, ensure there is no ambiguity as to whether the century or just its first decade is meant". And observe this is a subordinate clause of the policy: the main clause calls for 19th cent., etc. Evidently the reduction of ambiguity was not done, resulting in the concern raised by Paul_012. The article clearly needs to be fixed. XavierItzm (talk) 04:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

The main clause ("The 18th century refers to the period (1701–1800), while strictly the 1700s refers either to (1700–1799) or (1700–1709)") clarifies the difference between the 1700s century and the 18th century. Anyway, I fail to see how the text itself is problematic in terms of ambiguity here—it's just seems like a case of an editor used to one convention coming across another that they are not familiar with. TompaDompa (talk) 04:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

One editor? Excuse me? Both Paul_012 and I have objected, on common sense, common name, and policy grounds. XavierItzm (talk) 04:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I was referring to Paul_012's initial comment: In my understanding, "the 1900s" would refer to the decade of 1900–1909, but in this article it appears to be used to mean the 20th century seems to be a case of an editor used to one convention coming across another that they are not familiar with. As opposed to the text itself being problematic in terms of ambiguity. TompaDompa (talk) 05:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I do think the current usage is ambiguous and in contravention of the MOS's instruction "When using forms such as the 1900s, ensure there is no ambiguity as to whether the century or just its first decade is meant." For example,

• "Mars, the fourth planet from the Sun, has appeared as a setting in works of fiction since at least the mid-1600s." - The reader may be lead to think that these works appeared around 1605, as no details are mentioned until four paragraphs later in the article, when it mentions "the 1656 work Itinerarium exstaticum" with nothing from around 1605. If the reader made it that far, they will be initially confused by the discrepancy, before, maybe, slowly realising what "mid-1600s" originally meant. Then they'll have to backtrack and re-read the whole thing again, wasting their time.
• The reader will next come across "the late 1800s when it became clear that there was no life on the Moon." Then, four sentences later, "The War of the Worlds, H. G. Wells's novel about an alien invasion of Earth by sinister Martians, was published in 1897". Which comes off as strangely jumping ahead by 90 years, but does not unambiguously explain what was meant by "the late 1800s" in the first place. It's not until four paragraphs later, when "throughout the 1800s" appears again in the text and is expanded to 1839, 1873, and 1883, that the reader might be alerted to the intended meaning.
• "Life on Mars appeared frequently in fiction throughout the first half of the 1900s." Again, nothing to suggest that this meant 1900–1949 rather than 1900–1904.
• "...the second half of the 1900s following emerging evidence of the planet being inhospitable to life, eventually confirmed by data from Mars exploration probes." This might be the first instance that trips the reader's switch, as there were no Mars probes during 1905–1909. But that's only if they're knowledgeable in the history of space exploration. So the best case is that they'll only need to re-read the preceding two paragraphs in the correct context. Otherwise they won't know until deep into the first paragraph of the Early depictions section, as mentioned above.

The common-sense reading of the MOS is that any ambiguity must be addressed immediately when the reader encounters the '00s form, if not before, and especially not several paragraphs later, forcing them to backtrack and wasting their time. I hope I've demonstrated clearly enough why the current writing is far from optimal.

Also, as an aside, the article refers to "... the late 1800s [i.e. late 19th century] as it became clear that the Moon was devoid of life", but does not explain what scientific discoveries were made during this period that led to this knowledge. This is something that should be briefly explained and linked to. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't really agree either in the general or the specific. I mean, obviously I'm partial as I wrote it in the first place, but I think it's worth noting that none of the people reviewing the article either in the peer review or the FAC took issue with it or found it confusing. TompaDompa (talk) 15:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

About your aside: the sources don't deem it necessary to provide background information on the subject in more detail than this. TompaDompa (talk) 16:04, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, the Manual of Style is a lumbering beast, and I doubt anyone has all of it memorised by heart. Minor MOS violations slip through FAC not uncommonly, and the solution when they are found is simply to correct them. But anyway, since you referred to the reviewers we should probably ping them to allow them to clarify: Wehwalt, Kusma, Nikkimaria, Serial Number 54129, Cambalachero, MaxnaCarta, Jo-Jo Eumerus, Reywas92, Mike Christie, Piotrus, Chiswick Chap, and Ian Rose. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's a problem because the article describes a chronology of events and sets the context, it's not a date range provided from out of the blue that would require more detail to avoid confusion. Cambalachero (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think any of the uses of "1800s" and "1900s" are ambiguous. I don't think it would be a problem to replace one or two of them with "19th century" or "20th century", but I don't think it's necessary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I think it's probably better to stick to a single scheme throughout the article rather than mixing (and I would also consider combining "1960s" with "20th century" mixing schemes, though obviously less egregiously so). TompaDompa (talk) 19:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree -- consistency is a good enough reason to keep these as they are. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:23, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

and I would also consider combining "1960s" with "20th century" mixing schemes Sorry but that's just absurdly illogical. But all this isn't really relevant to the main issue: Since there seems to be preference for retaining the 1900s format, proper context needs to be provided to ensure there is no ambiguity, as required by the MOS. I've provided examples and explained how it's ambiguous to some readers. More reason-based arguments to the contrary would be appreciated, rather than plain statements of opinion like "I don't think it's a problem." --Paul_012 (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I searched the article for instances of "1800s" and "1900s" and re-read each paragraph. In each case I feel the context is obviously a larger range of time than individual decades, so the "century" interpretation is the only reasonable one. As a result there is no reason to disambiguate. I understand opinions can vary on this, but introducing needless disambiguating can be harmful -- it adds words without adding meaning and distracts the reader who sees it as unnecessary. The requirement is, as you say, to ensure there is no ambiguity. I think that requirement is met. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:29, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I am not totally sure why I was pinged if you don't want to hear "I don't think it's a problem", but I don't think it's a problem. From reading the lead, the usage of "1600s", "1800s", "1900s" is clear and consistent. I do not think there is real ambiguity unless you want to see ambiguity. Mind you, I personally prefer to say "17th century" to "1600s", but I am happy to accept this as a personal stylistic choice. —Kusma (talk) 20:29, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sure. As I disagree with your argument in the general (i.e. your assertion that The common-sense reading of the MOS is that any ambiguity must be addressed immediately), I don't find the specific instances to have any problematic ambiguity—the consistency alone does a lot to help, and "mid-1600s" gets proper context by the year 1656, for instance. The readings of the "XX00s" as decades all come across as rather nonsensical, really—it seems like intentionally trying to misunderstand the text. TompaDompa (talk) 20:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Apologies Kusma and Cambalachero, I was uncareful and quoted from the wrong response. I was looking more at Mike Christie's first reply, and was hoping for further elaboration on why they don't think the uses are ambiguous (which has now been provided—thank you). I've struck that part of my comment.

So far I gather that the opposing view mainly boils down to interpreting that part of the MOS as requiring there be no ambiguity when the entire article (or at least the few surrounding paragraphs) is considered. Fair enough. (Not that I necessarily agree.) To be honest, the 1600s and 1800s mentions didn't register either way on my initial reading, but it was the 1900s bit that I found confusing, since I have only seen 1900s used to refer to the decade and never the century (as reflected by the 1900s article, while 1600s and 1800s are disambiguation pages). --Paul_012 (talk) 20:58, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1900s (disambiguation). TompaDompa (talk) 03:24, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The Expanse

XavierItzm, sources on Mars in fiction do not consider The Expanse to be an important WP:ASPECT of how Mars and its moons have been depicted in fiction. You might notice that the examples in this article otherwise come from high-quality sources specifically on the topic of Mars in fiction such as Imagining Mars: A Literary History, the "Mars" entry in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, and so on. You added The Expanse with much lower-quality sources that are not specifically on the subject of Mars in fiction, namely IGN and Syfy articles on The Expanse. This article is a WP:Featured article because it reflects the contents of high-quality sources on the topic of the article according to WP:PROPORTION. The Expanse does not belong unless you can point to some sources on the overarching topic that actually cover this topic. See also e.g. MOS:POPCULT and WP:NOTTVTROPES. TompaDompa (talk) 04:06, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

You can't use Imagining Mars: A Literary History in any way, shape or form to exclude content well sourced from multiple subsequent WP:RS: that book is from 2011 and obviously the cited work of art that makes reference to Deimos is posterior. I'll be adding further comments later, per WP:TIND. XavierItzm (talk) 04:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

The "Mars" entry in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, on the other hand, was updated on 29 May of this year. The fact of the matter is that the WP:BESTSOURCES don't consider this to be an important WP:ASPECT of the overarching topic, and no amount of lesser sources change that. Wikipedia articles are supposed to cover each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject per WP:PROPORTION, and this simply doesn't belong with the level of sourcing you have provided. Feel free to add more comments later; in the meantime, I will remove the mention of The Expanse to maintain the quality of this WP:Featured article while it is on the main page. TompaDompa (talk) 04:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

The The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction is never cited in the Moons section of the article. At all. The section does not depend on that source; therefore, can that source be used as an argument to filter out WP:RS from the article? Has an assertion been made which is not supported by the sources? I would encourage you to self-revert at this point until consensus is reached. XavierItzm (talk) 04:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what part it is you do not understand, but I'm willing to try to explain it again. The article Mars in fiction is primarily based upon sources on the topic of Mars in fiction, as is appropriate (in general, an article about topic X is supposed to be based on sources on topic X). Examples come from sources on Mars in fiction, as is appropriate. The relevant policy is WP:ASPECT, which mandates that articles cover each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject—"on the subject" being the key phrase. Mars in fiction is a WP:Featured article because it meets the WP:Featured article criteria, one of which is that the article is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Part of being a representative survey of the relevant literature is of course giving the same relative weight to various aspects as the relevant literature does. This balance was discussed at some length during the WP:FAC, which you can read at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mars in fiction/archive1 if you are interested. As science fiction scholar Gary Westfahl notes, there are thousands upon thousands of potentially relevant titles. Obviously, we cannot (and should not want to) include all of them in an article like this. So how do we decide which ones to include? We look at how the sources on the overarching topic—Mars in fiction—treat the subject.

If anyone is escalating here, it's you—you made a WP:BOLD edit and were reverted, and rather than discussing the matter you reinstated your reverted edit. TompaDompa (talk) 05:05, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I might also add that while the "Mars" entry in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction is not currently cited in the "Moons" section, it was consulted when constructing the section in order to determine the relative weight of the different aspects (in other words, it was part of the relevant literature that was surveyed). That other sources happen to be the ones that are currently cited inline is more happenstance than anything. TompaDompa (talk) 05:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm convocating Reywas92 who participated in the WP:FAC and also expressed concerns regarding omission of The Expanse, though, admittedly, in a more general sense. There are now 3 WP:RS which support inclusion of The Expanse in the Moons section of the article. TompaDompa insits on repeatedly blanking the following:
In James S. A. Corey's The Expanse (2017), Deimos is destroyed through military action by Earth's government.
At first, TompaDompa deleted the 2017 The Expanse citation because is not included on a 2011 book of his. Yeah, he did that (!). Then he again deleted it because it is not in an online reference he says he uses ... but the Moons section of the article does not at all rely on his online reference (!!!). At this point, sadly, we may be looking at WP:OWNER issues. I see no contrition for the abuse of the sources employed to "justify" the purge of The Expanse from the article. XavierItzm (talk) 05:36, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Please WP:Assume good faith and read what I actually said. It's not that it's not included in those particular sources, it's that it's not included in any of the WP:BESTSOURCES. Surely you understand that an article on Mars in fiction should be based on sources on Mars in fiction, not sources on The Expanse? What sources on the topic of this article, i.e. Mars in fiction, deem this an important WP:ASPECT of the topic? Surely you understand that we cannot possibly mention every single work of fiction that verifiably depicts Mars? How do you believe we should decide which ones to include and which ones not to? TompaDompa (talk) 06:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

How do you believe we should decide which ones to include and which ones not to? One way would be which works are substantive and lasting – the expanse is 60 hours worth of visual media produced over six years, while many items in the article are short stories with unclear significance. Another would be notability – this is a notable work with with millions of views and many sources covering it, while an excessive amount of items in the article are non-notable works by non-notable authors. BESTSOURCES says we should use reputable sources, which may include some on the Expanse, NOT that we may *only* use certain sources that cover the article's topic as a whole. That sources do not compare and contrast this recent depiction of Mars in fiction with other depictions of Mars in fiction is no reason not to include it when it is, in fact, a major depiction of Mars in fiction! By no means is it synthesis to mention this here because it's undeniably within the topic, and its exclusion is not justified. Reywas92^Talk 14:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I can't agree that we should rely on editors' assessments of the relative importance of different aspects of a topic when writing articles, rather than the sources' assessments thereof. That runs counter to our WP:Core content policies. You are of course entitled to your opinion that The Expanse is a major depiction of Mars in fiction, but it is your opinion. I am certain that you would not advance this argument about a WP:BLP article, that we should include the things we as editors think are important in the proportion we find them to be important instead of reflecting the importance placed upon them by the sources on the topic. The same principles apply to all articles. TompaDompa (talk) 14:34, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

@Reywas92 I can't tell how you're determining "substantive and lasting"—it sounds kind of like length (or maybe budget), but those are both clearly not appropriate. I think we'll quickly run back into the problem that any system is subjective; we need to go by sources. Sources that say Mars (or Deimos) is in the Expanse, or even central to its plot, don't indicate if something has had a substantive and lasting impact on fiction in Mars. They only contribute to a TV Tropes style listing every appearance of Mars in fiction, which is exactly the wrong way to go for an article like this.

I'm a huge fan of The Expanse books and show and I'm certain they're having an impact. I wouldn't be surprised if writing on Mars fiction covers them in the future. Still, the sources need to be talking about Mars in fiction, not talking about The Expanse and bringing up Mars. Right now the best I'm finding is a journal article "Teaching Mars Literature" ([1], full text on TWL [2]), which has a single sentence bringing up The Expanse when talking about Red Mars (It resonates with Red Mars and the SpaceX program, and Amazon Prime's The Expanse series in which Mars has become an independent military power and is on the brink of war with Earth over rising tensions of nationalism and resources.). Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 14:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

@XavierItzm, per WP:IPCV, it really isn't enough for there to be sources about the expanse which briefly say it is partly set on mars. We need sources which discuss the topic of the article (Mars in fiction) and how the expanse fits in with that. That doesn't mean a book from 2011, that means any source about Mars in fiction. What your attempting here is to WP:SYNTH together sources which aren't discussing the topic at hand. This article has past WP:FAC precisely because it isn't a WP:TVTROPES style list of every time something has been said to be said on mars (literally every piece of fiction set on mars that has ever been reviewed would be included) but a WP:PROPORTIONAL reflection of the sources on the topic of the article (which again is Mars in fiction not the expanse) Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 09:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

P.S. you may want to read the WP:STEWARDSHIP and WP:FAOWN parts of WP:OWNER Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 09:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

We should probably mention The Expanse, but sources are relevant. I am also remindered of Mars shown in some episodes of Babylon 5. It would be good to mention those. If somoene links me to diff of content removed, I can offer my opinion. For now, I'd like to see those two shows mentioned in the article, but with sources discussing how mars was portrayed in them, even if briefly. PS. Didn't we discuss something similar in the context of Cowboy Bebop? Or was it related to Venus? (Both Mars and Venus appear in some episodes of CB). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:32, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

PS. I am pretty sure I've added Cowboy_Bebop:_The_Movie#Analysis this to that article, in the context of Mars and this article. And it appears this is no longer here... when was it removed and why? TD? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:33, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Cowboy Bebop is mentioned in the Venus in fiction article in the context of terraforming. Cowboy Bebop: The Movie was never added to this article, but doing so was discussed at the FAC; Star Red was added instead as we had both better sourcing and more interesting/relevant things to say about it. TompaDompa (talk) 03:31, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

And we never discussed B5? Here's a sample reliable source [3] that discusses Mars and B5 in the context of Mars independence, as well as some others. I'll look into the Expanse sourcing later. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

No, we didn't discuss that. I get an error message when clicking on that link, but I suspect that this is the same source? I'll take a look at it and get back to you; based on the abstract, I've added it to the "Further reading" section at least.

On a broader issue: this article is getting quite lengthy at over 8,000 words and approaching 200 different works covered. There is only so much more that can be added before we run into a "more is less" situation, and there is already a fair amount of stuff with pretty strong sourcing that has been omitted in the interest of brevity. I'm quite wary of adding more stuff with comparatively weak sourcing behind it; it's difficult to justify at this point and getting increasingly so. We're reaching a point where where we have to start considering "killing our darlings" by removing stuff when adding new things. An alternative could be creating sub-articles per WP:Summary style—certainly there is sufficient sourcing to justify a Terraforming of Mars in fiction article, for instance—though I'm not sure if that's the best WP:PAGEDECIDE approach and at any rate do not have any such plans at the moment. TompaDompa (talk) 03:45, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I managed to find a good place to mention Babylon 5 as an example of a broader point that source makes. The source could definitely be used to expand articles about the works mentioned in it (and possibly other articles as well), but I think we've basically utilized it as much in this article as can be reasonably justified based on the source's relative prominence in the literature on the overarching topic of Mars in fiction. TompaDompa (talk) 07:35, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Turns out that while The Expanse is not covered by sources on the topic as such, the first novel Leviathan Wakes is (albeit neither frequently nor extensively), so I've added a brief mention that also covers that it was the first in a series that later had a television adaptation. This solution should hopefully be satisfactory to everyone. TompaDompa (talk) 03:06, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

References