User talk:TompaDompa/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Regarding Supernovae in fiction

Hi, I saw that you reverted this edit with the rationale of it being overly detailed. I made that addition because the term "massive star" is potentially subjective without quantification. While I agree that this article shouldn't delve too deeply into technical details, it doesn't strike me as extraneous detail to clarify what a massive star is and I believe a comparison to the Sun should be understandable to a broad audience (although perhaps worded slightly differently). Thanks, ^Complex/_Rational 14:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I understand your point of view, but on the other hand the sources we have that discuss the specific topic of supernovae in fiction don't go into this level of detail, and we should follow their lead. Linking to Stellar evolution#Massive stars is sufficient. Nevertheless, I added an explanatory footnote about why the Sun cannot turn into a supernova. TompaDompa (talk) 15:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. That wikilink is still an improvement over before and addresses the technical details adequately. ^Complex/_Rational 19:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Help needed

Hey Tompa, I could use your help, or at least your advice. Another editor is being abusive and I'm wondering if I should go straight to dispute resolution or if I should try other approaches first. We had a long conversation that ended in a stalemate, but then I finally realized their point of view and changed my editing based on their feedback. Now they are getting upset and making threats based on small and harmless edits I'm making (adding a photo, adding a source, removing redundant wikilinks, etc). You can view the latest conversation on my talk page. Wafflewombat (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Having looked into this specific situation extremely little, I'll give you advice I should probably follow more often myself: try disengaging for a while and edit elsewhere in the meantime. You can always restart the conversation at a later point, when things have likely cooled down a bit. TompaDompa (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

That is great advice, thank you. Wafflewombat (talk) 21:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, could you give me a hand with my talk page archives? I created the archive box by copying and pasting wikitext from another user's talk page. However, I would like my box to look like yours, without the word "Talk", which in my case links to some old page. Wafflewombat (talk) 00:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Sure. You currently have the wikicode {{archives|title=[[Help:User Talk Page Postings|Talk]] [[Help:Archiving a talk page|Archives]]|}}. If you change it to {{archives|title=[[Help:Archiving a talk page|Archives]]|}}, that should do the trick. TompaDompa (talk) 19:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Bingo! Thanks. Wafflewombat (talk) 20:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Supernovae in fiction

On 19 July 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Supernovae in fiction, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in fiction, supernovae are induced to serve as weapons, power sources for time travel, and advertisements? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Supernovae in fiction. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Supernovae in fiction), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

^Complex/_Rational 00:04, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I am inclined to seek a topic ban against your tendentious editing

You are welcome to tweak the wording of additions to more clearly reflect the sources, but removing sourced content is borderline vandalism, and I will take this to WP:ANI for a topic ban against your further participation in this subject area. BD2412 T 21:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

That's rather silly of you. Removing sourced content is not remotely vandalism if the content misrepresents the source, or if the content is off-topic. I'm sure you understand that. I'm also sure you understand that discrimination and backlash are not the same thing, that discrimination and regulation are not the same thing, and that discrimination and registration are not the same thing. If you're adding content to the article discrimination against superheroes, the content has to be about discrimination against superheroes. If you want to add content about backlash against superheroes, regulation of superhero activity, or superhero registration, you either need to find sources that say that these are forms of discrimination against superheroes or find some other article where the content is a better fit. TompaDompa (talk) 21:44, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I have proposed in the AfD to rename the article, so the scope will be broad enough to cover the content that I have added. Curiously, you yourself noted in the edit summary that the source that I provided addresses discrimination against superheroes. If you have not understood that the legal measures discussed constitute discrimination, then you need to read the source more carefully, and not revert sourced additions so blindly. BD2412 T 21:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Renaming the article/altering the scope is not necessarily a bad idea, but that decision should of course be made before adding such content, not after. That the legal measures discussed constitute discrimination is your argument/viewpoint, not the source's; registration and discrimination are discussed separately by the source. I do indeed recognize that the source covers discrimination against superheroes (in the particular legal context of the US); what I took issue with was the specific content you added, not the source's suitability for the article as such. TompaDompa (talk) 22:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

You had the opportunity to improve the content referenced by the source to reflect the very scope you have just discussed. Instead, you chose to remove the source, as if the source itself said nothing on discrimination against superheroes. That is at best counterproductive to the purposes of the encyclopedia, and at worst an act of deception. BD2412 T 22:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I could not have improved that particular content though, considering the scope/off-topic issue noted above. I would have had to write entirely new content (presumably about whether superheroes would be protected by US laws against discrimination, which is the main thing the source discusses in terms of discrimination) using the same source. I didn't remove the source as such (i.e., intentionally), it just so happened that the particular content I removed was the only content using that source, so it disappeared from the reference list as a consequence. It could, I suppose, have been added as a "Further reading" item or similar. TompaDompa (talk) 22:32, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Trans-Neptunian planets

You just reverted my edit. Why? The article clearly says: "Planets beyond the orbit of Neptune, or even Pluto, appear in several works of science fiction." In my example, it was referred to as the tenth planet, because Pluto was still considered a planet back then. Today it would have been called the ninth planet. It's in out solar system, but beyond the orbit of Neptune and Pluto, so why was it reverted? Silbad (talk) 04:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

The article is not meant to enumerate every single depiction of fictional planets beyond the orbit of Neptune or Pluto. Rather, it is supposed to cover each aspect in WP:PROPORTION to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. That is to say, examples should come from sources on the overarching topic of Fictional planets of the Solar System/Trans-Neptunian planets in fiction, as outlined in my edit summary. TompaDompa (talk) 04:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

From the article: "In Jules Verne's 1889 short story "In the Year 2889", the discovery of a planet beyond Neptune called "Olympus" is mentioned. Two 1931 short stories by Victor Rousseau Emanuel feature such planets: "Outlaws of the Sun", where the planet Circe has low gravity and is inhabited by primitive giants, and "Revolt on Inferno", where the planet Inferno has a hostile environment and is used as a remote penal colony." I really don't see how examples like that are different from my example. Much of the article is just examples. Not sure how many fictional planets outside Neptune and Pluto there are in fiction. If it is the source that is the problem and not the examples themselves, it should be irrelevant as long as it is trustworthy (and I have the comic, so I know it is). Silbad (talk) 04:19, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

They are different because those are examples discussed by sources covering the topic of trans-Neptunian/trans-Plutonian planets in fiction. As WP:PROPORTION says, An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. "On the subject" is key. TompaDompa (talk) 04:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, I still disagree, and it feels a bit like gatekeeping, but I'm not gonna waste any more time on it. Either way, it should be mentioned in the section, using this function: Silbad (talk) 04:34, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks

Re: this. You noticed this faster than I did (they don't have a system for notifying authors when stuff is published, and I don't follow their updates otherwise...). Unless I get distracted, I want to write up about some more modern writers for them in the coming months/years... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Klerykal fiction

Someone translated my article about Polish sf genre from pl wiki. Thought you'd enjoy it :) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)