This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 000 km, use 000 km, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 000 km.
[?]{{fact}}
s. (error messages...)
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, SriMesh | talk 06:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
The article is in very good shape. I think it meets the Good Article criteria with respect to the completeness criteria, as all significant points are covered by the article. However there are still other issues, based on the previous review, that the article falls short on. Specifically, the references could use more work; there are still some areas where referencing is lacking, or it's possible that it is being cited by a reference at the end of the paragraph, but due to other references in that paragraph, it's not evident that information at the beginning of the paragraph is backed up.
The prose is overall very good, although it gets very technical at times, and could be brought down into plain english a bit better.
The lead is good; it provides a decent summary of the article without going into too much detail.
The 'origin of concept' section could be written better. The second paragraph, citing specific publications, should probably be moved to the beginning, as an intro to the section. It's kind of awkward being mentioned second, after a relatively long first paragraph. The 1959 science paper has no citation on it -- it would help if this had a reference, since it is mentioning a specific publication (including the link to the paper in a footnote would also help the reader find the paper for further research as well).
In the 'other types' section, when talking about the Ringworld, the last sentence mentions, "... a fact recognized by Larry Niven and addressed in sequels to the original novel." However, the "original novel" was not mentioned previously in the section -- the paragraph simply starts talking about Niven's ringworld concept, not noting that it was the subject of a novel (actually about 3-4 novels, if I remember correctly). So the context here is inaccurate.
There are lots of wikilinks in the 'see also' section to links which were previously mentioned in the article text itself, which goes against the manual of style's recommendations. This section can be reduced by reducing it to only major related topics, and topics that were not previously covered by the article.
I think we're getting close here; clear up the citation issues and some minor prose & MOS issues, and I think it can be a GA. Please renominate this once the issues have been addressed. Cheers! Dr. Cash 05:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Oppose Oppose this article needs accomplish two things before I can consider a Support
Dyson, F. J., Search for Artificial Stellar Sources of Infrared Radiation, Science, vol. 131, pp. 1667-1668, 1959
Dyson, F. J., The Search for Extraterrestrial Technology, in Perspectives in Modern Physics (Essays in Honor of Hans Bethe), R. E. Marshak (Editor), John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1966
why aren't these cited??!?!? I'm complete baffled, to the direction the community has chosen to take with this page.-- Sparkygravity ( talk) 02:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure this subject has been brought up before, and perhaps even deleted before, however I found no reference to it within the discussion or article. Fans of Star Trek The Next Generation might recall an entire episode based on the Dyson Sphere, including references to Freeman Dyson. While science fiction in nature, and not adding to the relevance of the topic, pop culture references such as these are often mentioned in Wikipedia articles as an anchor in 20th and 21st century vernacular for understanding. Why not mention it here? would there be any problem with that? 67.182.84.151 ( talk) 07:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be moved out of the lead position, as the article itself indicates that a shell is physically impossible, a fact of which Dyson himself was well aware. (No less than Cosmic Variance appears to have been thrown off by this.) Surely Image:Dyson Swarm.GIF would better illustrate the concept, no? -- 99.225.218.183 ( talk) 04:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Why are all the examples and calculations for a sphere of 1AU in radius? Who cares if the sphere gets the same isolation as the earth, you can't live on the inside what with the whole falling into the sun due to gravity thing. A sphere that was built closer would use less matter, and would enjoy an increasingly large ratio of solar radiation pressure versus surface area, which might help support the sphere. Could this force push the material requirements into the non hypothetical realm or does the increased gravity from being closer negate the gains from this approach? 70.70.145.85 ( talk) 06:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
just did some fast calculations, at 3 700 000 km from the center of the sun (roughly 3 000 000km from the surface) the gravity on the outside due to the sun would be roughly 1g, that would seem to be a good starting point, and likely much more useful if the Dyson sphere was being used for habitation as well as power generation. However, I'd assume that it would be pretty hot this close, so maybe we'd need a different magical material that is impervious to heat as opposed to impervious to pressure. Or really good active cooling. Well, its a thought at least. 70.70.145.85 ( talk) 06:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Well wouldn't a civilization that actually had a working, efficient dyson sphere have the energy to cool/shield the inside to habitable levels, or as i imagine create and maintain an atmosphere on the outside. I mean the sun puts out a whole lot of energy and as needy as we biological creatures are we have managed to survive on a meager fraction of that. Plus the technology necessary to accomplish its construction is so far beyond our current capabilities that we have no idea how we would have changed or the biological needs of a different race that produced one. 98.28.114.217 ( talk) 05:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps the best reference discussing in detail the math behind why a sphere doesn't work but why a shell of orbiting "satellites" or "habitats" will is:
K. G. Suffern, "Some Thoughts on Dyson Spheres", [i]Proc. Astronomical Society of Australia[/i], 3(2):177-179 (1977).
If someone wants to modify the Dyson Shell page to include this and needs a copy of the article for review, please send me an email request (robert.bradbury@gmail.com).
The "solid" sphere image should be thrown out entirely because it leaves a misimpression that a "sphere" would actually work when it will not. Anders Sandberg's pages, some I have had created, and a print by M.C. Escher's "Concentric Rinds" print all are better examples of what a Dyson shell would look like.
One cannot have the orbiting shells too close to the sun because the laws of physics involving blackbody radiation (Wein's law & the Stefan-Boltzmann law) would require that they have very high temperatures (witness all the discussion regarding "hot Jupiter" exoplanets that orbit very close to their stars). You have to remember that a complete shell has to get rid of ~3.86 x 10^26 W of energy (for our sun) and it is the surface area of the shell (tied to the distance from the sun) that determines the temperature. A smaller shell equates to a higher temperature. If you shield a near-sun shell using mirrors, you run the risk of heating up the sun, presumably making it hotter and causing it to expand and/or reflecting the energy back onto other satellites. I don't know at what point this process would run amok, but I suspect it wouldn't take very long.
It is generally agreed among physicists that a solid sphere will not work. Dyson himself even knew this because in the letters in response to his original article someone complained that a sphere, even a rotating sphere, could not support itself against gravity. Dyson's response was that he knew this and that his and that he was envisioning a large number of orbiting satellites (or O'Neil type habitats though the concepts for those would be developed by O'Neil much later). If you carefully review Dyson's original article he *never* uses the word "sphere", he always uses the word "shell".
It might also be useful to add a reference to the Wikipedia discussion of Matrioshka_brain, in which the Dyson shell concept is expanded to include nested Dyson shells which can operate from very near the sun out to beyond the orbit of Pluto.
Robert ( talk) 17:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
---
I don't know whether it is appropriate to mention this on the talk page, but I was at a small reception for Dr. Dyson Thursday 3 December 2009, where he was asked about the so-called Dyson sphere. He said that he originally posed the concept of anomalous infrared sources as a signature of advanced civilizations. The later observation of many natural infrared sources ( stars in the early stages of formation, or in gas clouds) made that an unreliable detection method. He attributed the ideas of spheres or shells (as unitary objects) as misinterpretation by careless science fiction authors. BTW, at 85 he is still charming, intelligent, and lively.
KeithLofstrom ( talk) 08:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Any kind of Dyson Ring/Sphere/Nutcase (lol) will significantly reduce the heliosphere or probably weak it too much for the sun protecting its surrounds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.140.33.63 ( talk) 17:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
...Fail. Just fail.
To put this in perspective, the statement in the text is about as effective as comparing a purple ostrich bonnet to a snizzlemork of hundybat paste.
That reminded me of the possessed accountant's meaningless boasts in Ghostbusters. Anyone got a way we can discuss the difference in power requirements and the power that would be gathered by a Dyson shell in more meaninful terms? That is, for all practical intents and purposes, it should not include "x10" or any exponents for any reason.
J.M. Archer ( talk) 20:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
"Lastly, the shell would be vulnerable to the material in interstellar space that is currently being deflected by the Sun's Bow shock." Really? The bow shock is still practically vacuum to what people would call 'materials'. (physical objects) 88.159.72.240 ( talk) 18:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
The sun doesn't have a Bow Shock. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bow_shock ````
Freeman Dyson may deserve better than this quote:
"The concept of the Dyson sphere was the result of a thought experiment by physicist and mathematician Freeman Dyson, when he theorized that ..."
as if this were truly comparable to his thinking about Feynman diagrams or to his rigourous work on the stability of matter (theorizing) in terms of the Pauli exclusion principle, itself a central notion in an impressive and weel-confirmed (if incomplete) theoretical framework.
Compare his notion of this spehere arising due to energy demands with the work in behavioral economics theory which merited a Nobel Memorial prize in economics for a non-economist (by training.)
Wikipedia would be better served as suggested in a note above concerning handling sci-fi notions in an encyclopedia.
Dyson's views on religion are not physics or mathematics contributions, nor was this, even if published in Science. A similar issue arose for Ossian translations as German literature: where published is not the issue. There may be a lesson in "Ossian" persisting among German Romantics long after being debunked in the UK. I do concede the historical fact that James Macpherson went on to some small success in British politics. Of course, had he faked discovering "early science fiction" predating both Bacon and Voltaire ...
I believe the articles on Ossian are far more detailed than the articles on their author. In Dyson's case, one might hope articles on his real achievements out-weight those on his notions which happen to be followed by enthusiasts (fans?) rather than historians of science.
G. Robert Shiplett 13:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
The parenthetical phrase "(regardless of the effects of planetary warming caused by the input of energy to the planet)" in the lead section assumes that a civilization capable of building a Dyson Sphere would still inhabit a planet and just use the sphere for energy collection. This is a ridiculous assumption. The parenthetical phrase should be removed. Fartherred ( talk) 10:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I have a question about the radius of Dyson spheres in the ring that is told in the first picture: it says that the orbit is 1 AU in radius, collectors are 1.0×10^7 km in diameter, spaced 3 degrees from center to center around the orbital circle.
However I caculated and found which was likely an error: 1AU*2*(3.1416)/120=7832944 Km, it's unlikely to put a 10000000 km-in-diameter sphere in this space.
123.192.97.66 ( talk) 18:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Because it's not based on fantasy!! Freeman Dyson proposed that we could use the idea to look for unexplainable but high index infra red light. Observing such an phenomenon might lead to the discovery of a Dyson sphere and of extraterrestrials.
The concept is impossible because of either the laws of physics or material resource availability or technological limitations. ... Please add new section, I suggest the title Criticism and be sure to cite those sources ;) Thank you!
In response to It is also impossible given current or credible projected future human capabilities (even into the far distant future). This isn't cited, and it doesn't matter because whether we could build a Dyson's sphere is a moot point. You may be right, but it's about whether or not it's possible, the article is about whether or not a alien species could accomplish the task, or any advanced civilization could. This article is not Earth centered! Science does not exist fulfill humans POV (point of view).
Finally, there's a very important word in the first sentence of this article, a word that describes, a word that the article could not do without, a word that should calm all naysayers, that word is hypothetical. Thanks for reading-- Sparkygravity ( talk) 14:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
It's entirely based on fantasy.
Not a single shred of evidence currently exists for the existence of or theoretical physical possibility of such a structure, whilst the overwhelming weight of scientific knowledge and understanding voids its theoretical possibility upon multiple grounds.
One can propose just about anything way out and call it hypothetical, but in the absence of a detailed study let alone an even remotely comprehensive technical analysis showing how fundamental physical laws and problems can be overcome this concept remains fantasy and it needs to be stated clearly and upfront.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. Where are the peer reviewed scientific studies? I can quickly think of literally dozens of physical limitations that would prevent construction, but feel free to include them in a new section yourself spelling out in detail for the intellectually or reality challenged. Its impossible given all we know about the world unless proven otherwise. Perhaps you could compose a message to be sent upon the discovery of one of these structures asking how the constructors managed to change the laws of physics to enable such a structure: your descendants will be waiting forever.
A technologically exponentiating human species, shifted to the far distant future, is for the purposes of determining possibility, essentially the same as any other 'advanced civilization' past current or future.
As for the word, well, my word or perhaps i should say my lord, because it can be used in a similar fashion to describe the fantasies about the existence of gods, and there is also no evidence for the existence or possibility of them either, except in this case divination of deities is being replaced with searches for fundamentally impossible structures. For all i know a new 'advanced civilization' may arise every second tuesday, but it seems to me that such hypotheses about dyson spheres are simply a pseudo scientific reforming of infantile religious delusion and fantasy existing to support an emotional need such as the denial of the reality of death.
--Theo Pardilla 09:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't mean to rain on anyone's parade here, but something's been bothering me for a while about this article. The fourth word in this article is "hypothetical".
There's nothing hypothetical about a Dyson sphere. A Dyson sphere's pure fantasy. See the difference? " Hypothetical" means "supposed", "highly conjectural" and "not well supported by available evidence"; " hypothesis" involves the concept of "highly probable". A Dyson sphere is none of these things. It's not even a proposition. It is pure fantasy.
Furthermore, on the point of the Dyson shell - something no one (not even Mr Dyson) seems to have thought of is...even if we could build one...the Solar wind would burst it immediately. Duh! Oh, and no, there isn't enough matter in any star system to build a shell around the entire system. And even if there was - why would you need so much energy?!
And, finally - it takes months to put a cable under the Atlantic. No matter what technology we invent - how're you gonna put a wall around a star?
Not "hypothesis"...but "pure fantasy". See the difference?
Right. That was my rant. Feel better now. BigSteve ( talk) 19:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
A Dyson sphere is a fictional object, and so is Hyperspace. The Dyson sphere descibed is also a unique type of Dyson sphere, the comment removed is to focus on the type of Dyson sphere mroe than the incident of its occurance. Plasmic Physics ( talk) 00:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
The article says about a Dyson shell: "Such a shell would have no net gravitational interaction with its englobed star (see shell theorem), and could drift in relation to the central star." This is indeed straightforwardly the case for a spherically symmetric mass inside the sphere, but what about an arbitrary, non-spherically-symmetric mass distribution? -- JorisvS ( talk) 00:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
And what happens if one breaks the spherical symmetry of the Dyson shell itself? -- JorisvS ( talk) 00:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Given the speculative nature of the idea, the numerous engineering and practical difficulties which it would present, I think the article should either be reclassified as a fictitious construct (as opposed to in the "Natural Sciences" section), or a more compelling discussion on the technical difficulties should be included. In particular, there seems to be no mention as to why one would expect intelligent life to deploy this form of technology over more flexible alternatives such as variants of nuclear power.
The fact that the idea has been published in "Science" does not automatically mean that it is technologically relevant.
150.203.179.56 ( talk) 01:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
2 things a shell is unlikely to contain: neutrinos & gravitational radiation. Yes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.146.67 ( talk) 06:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Is http://starshipconf.ucsd.edu temporarily down or for good? Vbond ( talk) 22:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to throw a lot of dirt on the fire here, but outside of the stability argument, another aspect to the infeasibility of a D sphere is the null gravitational field on the inside of the shell. No thing could be on the inside, assuming near perfect symmetry. All things standing on teh surface would fall to the star. Sorry, just thought that it should be mentioned in the article, as did not see it, also, sorry that i cant document this or myself correctly to save my life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.180.192 ( talk) 07:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
This has to do with the support of a Dyson Sphere by magnetic attraction to rings that orbit a star at super-orbital speeds in evacuated tubes. The article claims: "The arrangement of such tracks suffers from the same difficulties as arranging the orbits of a Dyson swarm". This is a false statement. The orbits of solar collectors in a Dyson swarm need to avoid shadowing each other excessively to efficiently collect power. The super-orbital rings do not need to avoid shadowing each other. There ought to be a reliable source for this false statement if it is to be kept in the article. So I am tagging it {{citation needed}}. Fartherred ( talk) 09:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Please explain the lack of a link to solar wind in this article.
Given the recent space achievement of reaching the Heliopause, I find this peculiar. Is a link to Magnetosphere also lacking?
Dyson's important ideas were sometimes backed with rigourous thinking and proofs: no Dysonian heretic should be shy to add links to solar wind and Magnetosphere even if only in See Also.
I think part of a shell would choose to break away and sail off (the article mentions "solar sails".)
Personally, I do not rank this as a "thought experiment" in the tradition to which Dyson rightly belongs as a physicist. I place it with his view of how little harm religion has done, as the women stoned by their own brother throwing the first rock have not yet communicated their views to him as have not yet the desperate widows who threw themselves onto funeral pyres, nor the women who were kept illiterate by religion or sold so as not to have dowries or drown at birth ... as all technically advanced hominids develop a shell of culture woven with myth. Even Taoism became a religion ... perhaps due to roads connecting cities.
If you believe that technically advanced beings abandon their home planet and can be found by infrared signature, then these should turn up eventually where habitable exo-planets are expected but not found ... among the now estimated billions of such planets in this galaxy. Or we could wait to approach Andromeda for a better view ... ;-)
In the natural world, would these shells invite predation? Parasitism? Epiphytes?
All in good humour, if not in good time (space permitting ...)
G. Robert Shiplett 13:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
The purpose of an encyclopedia article should be to present the facts. The facts are a "sphere" cannot exist and this was pointed out in letters to Dyson after his original Science article. He made a point of qualifying that he never intended it to be conceived of as a "sphere" but was instead a set of orbiting satellites, i.e. a "shell". This entire topic should be removed and a "Dyson Sphere" should be documented as a fictional construct of the Science News writer who misinterpreted what Dyson was saying. I have this literature online for anyone who would like to review it. A "Dyson Sphere" is entirely a *fictional concept* which cannot exist (at least using known materials) in reality. The entire contents should be moved to a "Dyson Shell" topic where it is made completely clear that a "sphere" cannot easily exist using known physics. A shell of orbiting satellites however is completely feasible. Any and all pictures portraying a "sphere" should be removed and the reasons why a true sphere using "classical" materials is not viable should be documented. The mistaken concept of a "Dyson Sphere" which is largely impossible should be replaced with more reasonable concepts, e.g. Dyson Shells or Matrioshka Brains. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertBradbury ( talk • contribs) 09:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone explored the concept of a Dyson sphere in which the orbiting objects are allowed to push on one another? For example, as an object orbits it uses a superconducting magnet or the like to remain a constant distance from each continual stream of objects orbiting in a different plane that it encounters, weaving back and forth from the star. It would seem like such a scheme could ensure complete capture of all sunlight from the star with not very much waste over a solid shell, with minimal energy usage, but engineering it would be formidable (i.e. if you come up with something I'd love to read about it). Wnt ( talk) 16:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Is this addition really appropriate? The original paper from the Royal Astronomical Society [1] doesn't make any mention of any extra-terrestrial explanation, never mind a dyson sphere. The speculation is coming from media coverage of one astronomer (Jason Wright of Penn State) who wasn't involved in the original discovery. Pongley ( talk) 15:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I am pretty sure that a Dyson shell WOULD be stable around a sufficiently bright object. For example, if the star drifts towards the edge of the Dyson shell, then the radiation pressure would press HARDER against the surface it was approaching, and SOFTER against the surface it was moving away from. This would press the Dyson shell along, and keep it away from the star. 32ieww ( talk) 22:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
The wording is counter-intuitive, that the density of a sail would be 0.78 g/m2, because the radiation pressure is not a constant. It varies according to your distance to the star. But in the linked reference the argument was given that as you move closer to the star, radiation pressure increases, but so does gravity, and so these effects cancel. By the way, radiation pressure of a variable star is not constant, and our sun is slightly variable. It would improve the article to state both of these facts. -- 135.23.66.249 ( talk) 01:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Dyson sphere. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
If a civilization bases its hopes on a Dyson sphere, it will certainly die soon! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4100:6F00:E1EC:675D:2BEA:9B91 ( talk) 14:00, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Is it specified in any of the sources how the star's energy is actually harvested? I would have thought of solar panels, obviously, but this isn't mentioned anywhere. -- Felix Tritschler ( talk) 18:28, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
There are many users that want to include Birch Worlds in the section, although there are no serious sources that include the Birch World - the three main sources are a Stellaris Mod, the game Spore, and the Simple English Dictionary. Should we thus include Birch Worlds in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.88.72.203 ( talk) 00:08, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
The article Dyson spheres in popular culture should be a section in this article since neither of them are extremely large and both talk about Dyson Spheres, with the main article of DS having a small section that redirects into the Dyson spheres in popular culture article. Kaitary ( talk) 09:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
This topic is also being discussed in the talk page of the 'Dyson spheres in popular culture' article, so I figured it would be productive and good if anyone working on either article could give their stance on this. Kaitary ( talk) 09:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Following on from the Good article reassessment, I'm now planning to remove the remaining large chunks of unsourced and poorly sourced speculative text from this article. The objectionable material has been tagged for long enough, and now has to go. MichaelMaggs ( talk) 09:17, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
P Aculeius (and others): Do any sources on the topic of this article—
Dyson spheres—discuss the Star Trek episode? See
WP:PROPORTION: 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.
(other ways of explaining the same concept in the context of fiction-related articles can be found at
MOS:POPCULT and the essays
WP:CARGO and
WP:IPCV). "On the subject" is key here; it is not sufficient for sources on Star Trek (or that specific episode) to mention it.
TompaDompa (
talk) 13:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
one of the more notable references in fictionBy what metric? The metric that counts here is WP:PROPORTION, i.e. the coverage in sources on the topic at hand. TompaDompa ( talk) 14:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
clearly a notable occurrence, but that's your opinion. Do sources on the overarching topic of this article— Dyson spheres—view it as such, as evidenced by covering it non-trivially? If so, add those sources. The number of pageviews Relics (Star Trek: The Next Generation) gets compared to e.g. The Wanderer (Leiber novel) is irrelevant—what matters is whether sources on the overarching topic discuss these fictional examples. Likewise, it doesn't matter if an example is from an on-screen medium or literature—what matters is the coverage in sources on the topic. That Freeman Dyson commented on it is an interesting piece of trivia for the episode, but it does not confer weight to its prominence in the overall literature on the topic of Dyson spheres (or their depiction in fiction).On the subject of what other editors think, you may have noticed that I was not actually the first editor to edit the page after you—that was MichaelMaggs, who also emphasized the issue of relevance to this article (but thought inclusion was in principle okay). TompaDompa ( talk) 14:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
You seem to want sources to say how notable one depiction is relative to other depictions before it can be included or discussed; I don't think this view will find much support in the Wikipedia community.No, that's not what I said. Read what I wrote again. However, that relevance is determined by sources on the topic, not by the opinions of Wikipedia editors, is codified in Wikipedia's WP:Core content policy of WP:PROPORTION. Mind you that
This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.(emphasis in original).
Quite a lot of editors seem to agree that it is a notable depiction; their opinions are just as valid as yours.Here you entirely correct, if only by mistake: their opinions, and yours, are equally irrelevant as mine. I should not have to tell you that the viewpoints of editors are irrelevant; this is a very basic level of understanding of our WP:Neutrality policy (
The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is irrelevant and should not be considered.). TompaDompa ( talk) 14:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
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.) was very obviously way out of proportion. It was a devoted paragraph all to itself, consisting of multiple sentences, way more than any other work of fiction got despite other works of fiction featuring more prominently in the secondary literature on the topic. I don't see how you can claim otherwise.Lest we forget: you added this, were reverted through a series of edits by two editors, and then re-added it without discussion. I tagged the issues duly identified by me as well as MichaelMaggs only after you had unilaterally reintroduced the disputed material, as a second-best option for the moment. TompaDompa ( talk) 15:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
treat[ing] each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject, as mandated by WP:PROPORTION? TompaDompa ( talk) 15:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
How much space is devoted to works of literature in literature about a subject is only one measure of significance.That's true, but the coverage in the literature on the topic is the measure Wikipedia uses in assigning due weight, as a matter of policy. You keep ignoring this very central point as though it were optional to abide by.
a paragraph on each would not make this section unwieldyA paragraph on each would be disproportionate both in terms of the coverage they get by the sources relative to each other and in terms of the coverage Dyson spheres get in the sources as a fictional concept compared to as a theoretical concept. TompaDompa ( talk) 16:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
FWIW, I removed the circular sourcing and replaced it with secondary sources using Space.com and Popular Mechanics, although the latter only has the merest mention of the episode. I hope this helps. ThaddeusSholto ( talk) 16:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
for being "unsourced" even though it clearly identified the source, it was removed for lacking proper sourcing. That is to say, lacking sourcing on the overarching topic: Dyson spheres (or their depiction in fiction). The fact that you felt it necessary to cite the primary source itself for the plot details—rather than getting them from the relevant sources on the overarching topic—should tell you something. If sources on the overarching topic do not cover the plot details, those plot details are not an important WP:ASPECT of the overarching topic even if they are an important aspect of the episode itself.This level of detail could dubiously be justified at a hypothetical Dyson spheres in fiction article that also goes into much more detail about the works of fiction deemed by the sources to be major examples, but it is way out of WP:PROPORTION to its significance to this topic— Dyson spheres. We currently devote 50 words to describing in-universe details of a Star Trek episode that, going by the sources on the overarching topic, is a rather minor example. The article currently says
The USS Enterprise is trapped in a Dyson Sphere [...]. It is the first such structure to be discovered, and is measured at two hundred million kilometers in diameter. The sphere has been abandoned by its inhabitants, apparently because its central sun has become unstable, emitting dangerous solar flares and radiation.Why mention that the Enterprise is trapped on the inside? Why mention that it is the first to be discovered (in-universe)? Why go into details about how the central star has become unstable? How important is the exact size? A much, much briefer summary could for instance be
[In the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode " Relics",] a Dyson sphere that has been abandoned after its central star became unstable appears.or for that matter
[...] an abandoned Dyson sphere whose central star has become unstable appears.TompaDompa ( talk) 19:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subjectI mean exactly that, I assure you it will all make a lot more sense to you. For starters: I cleaned up Dyson spheres in popular culture from a version that was a TV Tropes-style list that did not have any sources on the overarching topic whatsoever and turned it into a brief prose article based on sources about the overarching topic. Maybe this is a novel approach to you, but it is a tried-and-tested one for articles like this—indeed, there are even articles that were improved from precisely that kind of list without proper sourcing to WP:Featured article status, namely Mars in fiction (which I rewrote from scratch) and Venus in fiction (which Piotrus cleaned up, followed by the two of us collaborating on bringing it up to FA quality). The reason those articles (as well as Sun in fiction, which was not converted from a bad article to a quality one but which I wrote properly from the start) can be of FA quality is precisely that they do indeed abide by WP:PROPORTION by relying on sources on their respective overarching topics for establishing the appropriate relative weight of different aspects and examples. That the Dyson spheres in popular culture article was never improved to that level of quality by way of expansion is largely a result of high-quality sources on that topic being comparatively scarce. You can scoff at removing material for lacking proper sourcing, but you must realize that certain sourcing requirements (which differ from context to context) are an integral part of how Wikipedia works. Your assertion that
in most instances the source was obvious, and what you could have done was look for other sources or provide citationsleads me to believe that you (still!) do not understand what kind of sourcing is actually required here.You seem to be under the impression that editors, not sources, decide what's relevant to a topic (seeing as you have said
Quite a lot of editors seem to agree that it is a notable depiction; their opinions are just as valid as yours.and
The fact that fifteen different editors have thought it notable and relevant [...] should have suggested that it's a notable example, as well as other things along similar lines). That's just not how Wikipedia works. I know I sound like a broken record, but please read and understand WP:PROPORTION (and the rest of WP:NPOV, for that matter): articles should
treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. That's sources, not editors—surely you must understand that?You also seem to be under the impression that my objection to the Star Trek example has been that I disapprove of it per se. I put it to you that this is nonsensical in light of the fact that I repeatedly brought up the issue of whether there are sources that would make its inclusion WP:PROPORTION-compliant (
Do any sources on the topic of this article— Dyson spheres—discuss the Star Trek episode?and
Do sources on the overarching topic of this article— Dyson spheres—view it as such, as evidenced by covering it non-trivially? If so, add those sources.and
All this said, if we do find (at least decent-quality) sources on the topic of Dyson spheres, or their depictions in fiction, that mention the Star Trek episode, then we can mention it here [...] I'll go looking for adequate sources. If I find any, I will add them) and then located such sources and added them to the article. I have no reason to want to remove the Star Trek example now as it is, even if not well-sourced, at least adequately-sourced. Again, if you just assume that I mean precisely what I say when I make reference to abiding by WP:PROPORTION, you will certainly find that it makes much more sense.You must not have read what MichaelMaggs wrote particularly carefully, or else you are deliberately misrepresenting what they said, because they didn't say that the episode was trivial or trivia, they said that the plot description (specifically The USS Enterprise is trapped. The sphere is the first such structure to be discovered, and is measured at two hundred million kilometers in diameter. It has been abandoned by its inhabitants, apparently because its central sun has become unstable, emitting dangerous solar flares and radiation—note that the episode title was not mentioned) was.I don't mean to be rude, but have you considered the possibility that maybe you are simply in the wrong here? You say that the discussion got "heated" and "out of control"—I put it to you that I, and other editors, explained why we disagree repeatedly (often with clearly-outlined policy-based reasons to back those positions up), while you got irate and accused others of wrongdoing and malicious intent. TompaDompa ( talk) 18:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
The Enterprise discovers a huge object that might be a Dyson sphere, with a crashed ship on it. Inside the ship, they find two patterns in the transporter buffer, and manage to rematerialize former Enterprise Chief Engineer Montgomery Scott, who has been preserved for seventy-five years in the transporter. The Enterprise then enters the Dyson sphere, and the crew studies the structure with interest, before realizing that the ship is trapped, and threatened by dangerous radiation from the sphere's central star.
While the crew works to free the Enterprise from the Dyson sphere, Scotty tries to come to terms with being seventy-five years in the future, with his crewmate and everyone he knew now dead, and hopelessly out of place in the twenty-fourth century. He interacts with various members of the crew, in some case with callbacks to his more memorable scenes from the original Star Trek.
After a long talk with Captain Picard aboard a replica of the original Enterprise bridge on the holodeck, Scotty has much to think about. With moments to spare, the Enterprise finds a way to open the gate of the Dyson sphere, and escapes to safety. Scotty bids a sentimental farewell to his new friends, as he goes to make a new life for himself.
That's precisely what kind of description that should be in this article: not what happens in the episode, but how the Dyson sphere is portrayed.This may shock you, but I actually agree with this part—provided that it is in WP:PROPORTION
to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. TompaDompa ( talk) 22:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
I submit that the description of "Relics" as I wrote it is not out of proportion to its treatment in non-fiction literature about the subject of Dyson spheres.– Right, now we're talking. All that's left now is to demonstrate that this is indeed the case.
That body of literature is not very substantial in the first place, precisely because [...]– It is comparatively sparse, yes, but it's not like there isn't extensive literature on completely unrealistic science fiction concepts. Time travel is a good example.
Any fictional treatment of Dyson spheres mentioned in non-fiction literature about the subject is likely notable– Just to make sure that we're talking about the same thing, WP:Notability in the Wikipedia sense is not what's relevant here. Whether something is an important/significant/relevant/major WP:ASPECT is.
"Relics" is one of the few examples of Dyson spheres in fiction that is is mentioned in such literature– I have to ask: have you surveyed the literature on the topic? Because I have (assuming the topic we're talking about is specifically the depiction of Dyson sphere in fiction and not Dyson spheres in general), and while I can't claim that it was exhaustive, it should at least be a representative sample of the relatively high-quality sources that exist (e.g. the "Dyson Sphere" entry in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction). I don't know where you would draw the line for "few" examples, but we're talking at least a dozen and a half (more if counting sequels separately) even if we are fairly restrictive in what sources we consider—and "Relics" is not one of the works most frequently mentioned, or one of the works discussed the most in-depth, or one of the works typically covered by the most high-quality sources.
The same would be true of any of the novels named: if they're significant enough to be mentioned at all, then it's fair to provide a description of the Dyson spheres [...] One paragraph apiece on the most prominent examples does not seem excessive, but if the section did become quite large, it might be appropriate to split the list back into a separate article again.– See above about the number of works we would be talking about. It would be completely out of WP:PROPORTION here at this article. Dyson spheres are primarily a hypothetical, not fictional concept. Now I was opposed to merging Dyson spheres in popular culture here (though it should really have been called Dyson spheres in fiction), but if we're going to split the fiction section off it should be because there is consensus that it would be a better way to cover the topic, not just becomes it becomes unmanageably bloated. Adding a bunch of raw data—whether you want to call it "plot description", "in-universe details", or something else—from the works of fiction themselves does not an article make (see the essay WP:CARGO for details). What you are describing is in fact basing an article chiefly on WP:Primary sources, which is not how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is not, nor is it supposed to be, a secondary source where editorial interpretation, analysis, and synthesis is allowed (or even encouraged).
One paragraph apiece on the most prominent examples– Out of curiosity: how would you determine which the most prominent examples are?I'm sure that you would agree that if a hypothetical book-length source on the topic devoted an entire chapter to work A and only a sentence to work B, that would indicate that work A is a more important instance of this topos than work B, and our article should reflect this difference in relative weight placed upon the two works by the relevant literature, right? Likewise if twenty sources discuss work C and only one work D—right?
But to return to "Relics", it's likely that more people have watched that episode of Star Trek than have read all of the novels mentioned combined, and that more people first encountered—or at least became familiar with—the Dyson sphere concept due to watching "Relics" than through all of the scholarly literature on the topic.– Maybe, but that's irrelevant here. Coverage in the secondary literature is what matters.
And as the only example of the concept in fiction which we know that Freeman Dyson himself commented upon– It isn't. He very specifically commented upon Olaf Stapledon's Star Maker, indeed even noting that's where he got the idea from.
And as the only example of the concept in fiction which we know that Freeman Dyson himself commented upon, the episode is particularly worthy of mention– Dyson commenting on the episode is interesting, and if we are going to cover the episode I think it's worth briefly mentioning, but it does not in itself mean that the episode should be covered here—that comes down to the coverage
in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. Dyson commenting on the episode is information about the episode (and should therefore be covered on the article about the episode: Relics (Star Trek: The Next Generation)), not about the topic of this article— Dyson spheres. TompaDompa ( talk) 11:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
the amount of coverage found in "serious" literature is not the sole factor to consider: familiarity to the general public is perfectly relevant– That's just straight-up wrong when it comes to weight. Please read and understand WP:PROPORTION (and the rest of WP:NPOV, for that matter): articles should
treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. It doesn't say "proportional to its familiarity to the general public", now does it? In fact, WP:NPOV explicitly states more generally that
The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is irrelevant and should not be considered.
Merely naming notable examples of Dyson spheres in fiction is of little value to the reader– I don't entirely disagree, but what is of value to the reader is not pure description of in-universe details either, but rather overarching analysis—which of course needs to come from the sources, not editors. The essay WP:CARGO describes this very well, methinks. TompaDompa ( talk) 16:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
"Treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject" does not mean, "the maximum length of discussion in Wikipedia is determined exclusively by the length of discussion in reliable, published material on the subject."– No, but it does mean that when sources give a lot of weight to X so should we, and when they give only a little weight to Y so should we. As WP:NPOV points out, it's not just about length:
Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery.I wouldn't presume to tell you what Uncle G meant when they wrote the essay WP:CARGO back in 2008, but we can always just ask as they are still active on Wikipedia. The point I was making above is that in writing articles like this, analysis is paramount and examples are secondary/complementary to that analysis, and I think the "Collecting raw data does not produce an analysis" paragraph is a good way of explaining that concept.
In their opinion, one paragraph describing the Dyson sphere from "Relics" is not disproportionate and does not violate NPOV.– Great, then back that up with sources and we should all reach agreement. I have, as I stated above, made an actual attempt to survey the relevant literature—and I came to the conclusion that based on the sources, "Relics" is a relatively WP:MINORASPECT. Have you likewise surveyed the literature on the topic (i.e. not just gone looking for sources that cover "Relics"), or is it your opinion that it is
a particularly noteworthy example of a Dyson sphere in fiction? TompaDompa ( talk) 18:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
It's your opinion that it shouldn't be discussed in any detail as a "minor aspect".– No, it isn't. As in, that's not the position I have taken. Have you read what I have written?
And I don't need secondary sources to say "this treatment is more important than that one" or "the following are the most important treatments of this subject in fiction"—there will rarely ever be that kind of discussion in the literature—all the more so because Dyson spheres are themselves hypothetical and improbable.– No, but surely you understand that the coverage in sources can indicate variations in relative weight in other ways than explicit statements about relative weight? As I said above: surely you would agree that if a hypothetical book-length source on the topic devoted an entire chapter to work A and only a sentence to work B, that would indicate that work A is a more important instance of this topos than work B, and our article should reflect this difference in relative weight placed upon the two works by the relevant literature, right? Likewise if twenty sources discuss work C and only one work D—right?Your second paragraph boils down to Wikipedia's WP:Core content policies, specifically WP:NPOV and WP:PROPORTION in particular, being optional and subject to being overridden by local consensus. That's just not how Wikipedia works. That the sources are what determine the relative weight of different aspects, not editors, isn't just my opinion—it's a fundamental aspect of how Wikipedia works and such a basic level of understanding thereof that I honestly kind of assumed that you did not need it to be explained. 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) 18:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
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.means? TompaDompa ( talk) 19:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
why you would read that as a precise description of the length of a contribution– I have to admit that I'm not sure exactly what you meant by this, but your reference to "a precise description of the length" suggests to me that you think I hold some (unclear) position that I do not.
a vague guide that reasonable editors could differ on– Let's say for the sake of argument that it is. What does
treat[ing] each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subjectmean to you, then?
Describing the diameter, surface area, mass, or brief notes on the structure or structural defects of the Dyson sphere in two or three sentences isn't excessive by any criteria.– Are those the WP:ASPECTS that sources in the topic focus on? If not, it would be out of WP:PROPORTION to the coverage of those aspects in
in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. TompaDompa ( talk) 17:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
In their opinion, one paragraph describing the Dyson sphere from "Relics" is not disproportionate and does not violate NPOV.? The editor who said
what we in the current reversion seems fine (two sentences, one about the episode, one about Dyson's own commentary)back when the current version looked like this and categorically did not have
one paragraph describing the Dyson sphere from "Relics"? TompaDompa ( talk) 18:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
The USS Enterprise is trapped in a Dyson Sphere in the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode "Relics", and its novelization. It is the first such structure to be discovered, and is measured at two hundred million kilometers in diameter. The sphere has been abandoned by its inhabitants, apparently because its central sun has become unstable, emitting dangerous solar flares and radiation. In an interview, Freeman Dyson said that he enjoyed the episode, although he considered the concept of such an engineering marvel to be "nonsense". [internal citations omitted]
In the 1992 episode "Relics" of the TV show Star Trek: The Next Generation, the USS Enterprise finds itself trapped in an abandoned Dyson Sphere.
"The Dyson sphere originated in fiction, and it is a concept that has appeared often in science fiction since then. In fictional accounts, Dyson spheres are most often depicted as a Dyson shell with the gravitational and engineering difficulties of this variant noted above largely ignored."
numerous editors over the last three years asserting that "Relics" is a particularly notable example of a Dyson sphere in fiction– And backing that assertion up with what sources? The opinions of editors do not matter in establishing due weight, which I'm sure I don't have to tell you.I'll be blunt: you are clearly working backwards from the assumption that "Relics" is an important aspect of this topic. You have not based that on coverage in the sources, but rather on things that make it seem important to you, personally.
TompaDompa decided that it's not "proportionate" to its importance in literature about Dyson spheres. Which is somewhat ironic, considering that there's not much serious literature [...]– I have pointed you to several sources that cover the topic of Dyson spheres in fiction. If you think my assessment of those sources is wrong, make an argument to that effect rather than dismissing it out of hand based on your personal intuition about what should be covered. If you think I have missed important literature that would change my assessment, point to that literature and I'll reassess.
any notable work of fiction that substantially involves a Dyson sphere (i.e. not just passing mentions) should be included– That would mean basing the article or section chiefly on WP:Primary sources, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. What you are describing is how TV Tropes lists are created, not Wikipedia articles. TompaDompa ( talk) 17:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 000 km, use 000 km, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 000 km.
[?]{{fact}}
s. (error messages...)
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, SriMesh | talk 06:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
The article is in very good shape. I think it meets the Good Article criteria with respect to the completeness criteria, as all significant points are covered by the article. However there are still other issues, based on the previous review, that the article falls short on. Specifically, the references could use more work; there are still some areas where referencing is lacking, or it's possible that it is being cited by a reference at the end of the paragraph, but due to other references in that paragraph, it's not evident that information at the beginning of the paragraph is backed up.
The prose is overall very good, although it gets very technical at times, and could be brought down into plain english a bit better.
The lead is good; it provides a decent summary of the article without going into too much detail.
The 'origin of concept' section could be written better. The second paragraph, citing specific publications, should probably be moved to the beginning, as an intro to the section. It's kind of awkward being mentioned second, after a relatively long first paragraph. The 1959 science paper has no citation on it -- it would help if this had a reference, since it is mentioning a specific publication (including the link to the paper in a footnote would also help the reader find the paper for further research as well).
In the 'other types' section, when talking about the Ringworld, the last sentence mentions, "... a fact recognized by Larry Niven and addressed in sequels to the original novel." However, the "original novel" was not mentioned previously in the section -- the paragraph simply starts talking about Niven's ringworld concept, not noting that it was the subject of a novel (actually about 3-4 novels, if I remember correctly). So the context here is inaccurate.
There are lots of wikilinks in the 'see also' section to links which were previously mentioned in the article text itself, which goes against the manual of style's recommendations. This section can be reduced by reducing it to only major related topics, and topics that were not previously covered by the article.
I think we're getting close here; clear up the citation issues and some minor prose & MOS issues, and I think it can be a GA. Please renominate this once the issues have been addressed. Cheers! Dr. Cash 05:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Oppose Oppose this article needs accomplish two things before I can consider a Support
Dyson, F. J., Search for Artificial Stellar Sources of Infrared Radiation, Science, vol. 131, pp. 1667-1668, 1959
Dyson, F. J., The Search for Extraterrestrial Technology, in Perspectives in Modern Physics (Essays in Honor of Hans Bethe), R. E. Marshak (Editor), John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1966
why aren't these cited??!?!? I'm complete baffled, to the direction the community has chosen to take with this page.-- Sparkygravity ( talk) 02:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure this subject has been brought up before, and perhaps even deleted before, however I found no reference to it within the discussion or article. Fans of Star Trek The Next Generation might recall an entire episode based on the Dyson Sphere, including references to Freeman Dyson. While science fiction in nature, and not adding to the relevance of the topic, pop culture references such as these are often mentioned in Wikipedia articles as an anchor in 20th and 21st century vernacular for understanding. Why not mention it here? would there be any problem with that? 67.182.84.151 ( talk) 07:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be moved out of the lead position, as the article itself indicates that a shell is physically impossible, a fact of which Dyson himself was well aware. (No less than Cosmic Variance appears to have been thrown off by this.) Surely Image:Dyson Swarm.GIF would better illustrate the concept, no? -- 99.225.218.183 ( talk) 04:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Why are all the examples and calculations for a sphere of 1AU in radius? Who cares if the sphere gets the same isolation as the earth, you can't live on the inside what with the whole falling into the sun due to gravity thing. A sphere that was built closer would use less matter, and would enjoy an increasingly large ratio of solar radiation pressure versus surface area, which might help support the sphere. Could this force push the material requirements into the non hypothetical realm or does the increased gravity from being closer negate the gains from this approach? 70.70.145.85 ( talk) 06:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
just did some fast calculations, at 3 700 000 km from the center of the sun (roughly 3 000 000km from the surface) the gravity on the outside due to the sun would be roughly 1g, that would seem to be a good starting point, and likely much more useful if the Dyson sphere was being used for habitation as well as power generation. However, I'd assume that it would be pretty hot this close, so maybe we'd need a different magical material that is impervious to heat as opposed to impervious to pressure. Or really good active cooling. Well, its a thought at least. 70.70.145.85 ( talk) 06:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Well wouldn't a civilization that actually had a working, efficient dyson sphere have the energy to cool/shield the inside to habitable levels, or as i imagine create and maintain an atmosphere on the outside. I mean the sun puts out a whole lot of energy and as needy as we biological creatures are we have managed to survive on a meager fraction of that. Plus the technology necessary to accomplish its construction is so far beyond our current capabilities that we have no idea how we would have changed or the biological needs of a different race that produced one. 98.28.114.217 ( talk) 05:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps the best reference discussing in detail the math behind why a sphere doesn't work but why a shell of orbiting "satellites" or "habitats" will is:
K. G. Suffern, "Some Thoughts on Dyson Spheres", [i]Proc. Astronomical Society of Australia[/i], 3(2):177-179 (1977).
If someone wants to modify the Dyson Shell page to include this and needs a copy of the article for review, please send me an email request (robert.bradbury@gmail.com).
The "solid" sphere image should be thrown out entirely because it leaves a misimpression that a "sphere" would actually work when it will not. Anders Sandberg's pages, some I have had created, and a print by M.C. Escher's "Concentric Rinds" print all are better examples of what a Dyson shell would look like.
One cannot have the orbiting shells too close to the sun because the laws of physics involving blackbody radiation (Wein's law & the Stefan-Boltzmann law) would require that they have very high temperatures (witness all the discussion regarding "hot Jupiter" exoplanets that orbit very close to their stars). You have to remember that a complete shell has to get rid of ~3.86 x 10^26 W of energy (for our sun) and it is the surface area of the shell (tied to the distance from the sun) that determines the temperature. A smaller shell equates to a higher temperature. If you shield a near-sun shell using mirrors, you run the risk of heating up the sun, presumably making it hotter and causing it to expand and/or reflecting the energy back onto other satellites. I don't know at what point this process would run amok, but I suspect it wouldn't take very long.
It is generally agreed among physicists that a solid sphere will not work. Dyson himself even knew this because in the letters in response to his original article someone complained that a sphere, even a rotating sphere, could not support itself against gravity. Dyson's response was that he knew this and that his and that he was envisioning a large number of orbiting satellites (or O'Neil type habitats though the concepts for those would be developed by O'Neil much later). If you carefully review Dyson's original article he *never* uses the word "sphere", he always uses the word "shell".
It might also be useful to add a reference to the Wikipedia discussion of Matrioshka_brain, in which the Dyson shell concept is expanded to include nested Dyson shells which can operate from very near the sun out to beyond the orbit of Pluto.
Robert ( talk) 17:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
---
I don't know whether it is appropriate to mention this on the talk page, but I was at a small reception for Dr. Dyson Thursday 3 December 2009, where he was asked about the so-called Dyson sphere. He said that he originally posed the concept of anomalous infrared sources as a signature of advanced civilizations. The later observation of many natural infrared sources ( stars in the early stages of formation, or in gas clouds) made that an unreliable detection method. He attributed the ideas of spheres or shells (as unitary objects) as misinterpretation by careless science fiction authors. BTW, at 85 he is still charming, intelligent, and lively.
KeithLofstrom ( talk) 08:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Any kind of Dyson Ring/Sphere/Nutcase (lol) will significantly reduce the heliosphere or probably weak it too much for the sun protecting its surrounds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.140.33.63 ( talk) 17:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
...Fail. Just fail.
To put this in perspective, the statement in the text is about as effective as comparing a purple ostrich bonnet to a snizzlemork of hundybat paste.
That reminded me of the possessed accountant's meaningless boasts in Ghostbusters. Anyone got a way we can discuss the difference in power requirements and the power that would be gathered by a Dyson shell in more meaninful terms? That is, for all practical intents and purposes, it should not include "x10" or any exponents for any reason.
J.M. Archer ( talk) 20:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
"Lastly, the shell would be vulnerable to the material in interstellar space that is currently being deflected by the Sun's Bow shock." Really? The bow shock is still practically vacuum to what people would call 'materials'. (physical objects) 88.159.72.240 ( talk) 18:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
The sun doesn't have a Bow Shock. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bow_shock ````
Freeman Dyson may deserve better than this quote:
"The concept of the Dyson sphere was the result of a thought experiment by physicist and mathematician Freeman Dyson, when he theorized that ..."
as if this were truly comparable to his thinking about Feynman diagrams or to his rigourous work on the stability of matter (theorizing) in terms of the Pauli exclusion principle, itself a central notion in an impressive and weel-confirmed (if incomplete) theoretical framework.
Compare his notion of this spehere arising due to energy demands with the work in behavioral economics theory which merited a Nobel Memorial prize in economics for a non-economist (by training.)
Wikipedia would be better served as suggested in a note above concerning handling sci-fi notions in an encyclopedia.
Dyson's views on religion are not physics or mathematics contributions, nor was this, even if published in Science. A similar issue arose for Ossian translations as German literature: where published is not the issue. There may be a lesson in "Ossian" persisting among German Romantics long after being debunked in the UK. I do concede the historical fact that James Macpherson went on to some small success in British politics. Of course, had he faked discovering "early science fiction" predating both Bacon and Voltaire ...
I believe the articles on Ossian are far more detailed than the articles on their author. In Dyson's case, one might hope articles on his real achievements out-weight those on his notions which happen to be followed by enthusiasts (fans?) rather than historians of science.
G. Robert Shiplett 13:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
The parenthetical phrase "(regardless of the effects of planetary warming caused by the input of energy to the planet)" in the lead section assumes that a civilization capable of building a Dyson Sphere would still inhabit a planet and just use the sphere for energy collection. This is a ridiculous assumption. The parenthetical phrase should be removed. Fartherred ( talk) 10:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I have a question about the radius of Dyson spheres in the ring that is told in the first picture: it says that the orbit is 1 AU in radius, collectors are 1.0×10^7 km in diameter, spaced 3 degrees from center to center around the orbital circle.
However I caculated and found which was likely an error: 1AU*2*(3.1416)/120=7832944 Km, it's unlikely to put a 10000000 km-in-diameter sphere in this space.
123.192.97.66 ( talk) 18:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Because it's not based on fantasy!! Freeman Dyson proposed that we could use the idea to look for unexplainable but high index infra red light. Observing such an phenomenon might lead to the discovery of a Dyson sphere and of extraterrestrials.
The concept is impossible because of either the laws of physics or material resource availability or technological limitations. ... Please add new section, I suggest the title Criticism and be sure to cite those sources ;) Thank you!
In response to It is also impossible given current or credible projected future human capabilities (even into the far distant future). This isn't cited, and it doesn't matter because whether we could build a Dyson's sphere is a moot point. You may be right, but it's about whether or not it's possible, the article is about whether or not a alien species could accomplish the task, or any advanced civilization could. This article is not Earth centered! Science does not exist fulfill humans POV (point of view).
Finally, there's a very important word in the first sentence of this article, a word that describes, a word that the article could not do without, a word that should calm all naysayers, that word is hypothetical. Thanks for reading-- Sparkygravity ( talk) 14:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
It's entirely based on fantasy.
Not a single shred of evidence currently exists for the existence of or theoretical physical possibility of such a structure, whilst the overwhelming weight of scientific knowledge and understanding voids its theoretical possibility upon multiple grounds.
One can propose just about anything way out and call it hypothetical, but in the absence of a detailed study let alone an even remotely comprehensive technical analysis showing how fundamental physical laws and problems can be overcome this concept remains fantasy and it needs to be stated clearly and upfront.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. Where are the peer reviewed scientific studies? I can quickly think of literally dozens of physical limitations that would prevent construction, but feel free to include them in a new section yourself spelling out in detail for the intellectually or reality challenged. Its impossible given all we know about the world unless proven otherwise. Perhaps you could compose a message to be sent upon the discovery of one of these structures asking how the constructors managed to change the laws of physics to enable such a structure: your descendants will be waiting forever.
A technologically exponentiating human species, shifted to the far distant future, is for the purposes of determining possibility, essentially the same as any other 'advanced civilization' past current or future.
As for the word, well, my word or perhaps i should say my lord, because it can be used in a similar fashion to describe the fantasies about the existence of gods, and there is also no evidence for the existence or possibility of them either, except in this case divination of deities is being replaced with searches for fundamentally impossible structures. For all i know a new 'advanced civilization' may arise every second tuesday, but it seems to me that such hypotheses about dyson spheres are simply a pseudo scientific reforming of infantile religious delusion and fantasy existing to support an emotional need such as the denial of the reality of death.
--Theo Pardilla 09:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't mean to rain on anyone's parade here, but something's been bothering me for a while about this article. The fourth word in this article is "hypothetical".
There's nothing hypothetical about a Dyson sphere. A Dyson sphere's pure fantasy. See the difference? " Hypothetical" means "supposed", "highly conjectural" and "not well supported by available evidence"; " hypothesis" involves the concept of "highly probable". A Dyson sphere is none of these things. It's not even a proposition. It is pure fantasy.
Furthermore, on the point of the Dyson shell - something no one (not even Mr Dyson) seems to have thought of is...even if we could build one...the Solar wind would burst it immediately. Duh! Oh, and no, there isn't enough matter in any star system to build a shell around the entire system. And even if there was - why would you need so much energy?!
And, finally - it takes months to put a cable under the Atlantic. No matter what technology we invent - how're you gonna put a wall around a star?
Not "hypothesis"...but "pure fantasy". See the difference?
Right. That was my rant. Feel better now. BigSteve ( talk) 19:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
A Dyson sphere is a fictional object, and so is Hyperspace. The Dyson sphere descibed is also a unique type of Dyson sphere, the comment removed is to focus on the type of Dyson sphere mroe than the incident of its occurance. Plasmic Physics ( talk) 00:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
The article says about a Dyson shell: "Such a shell would have no net gravitational interaction with its englobed star (see shell theorem), and could drift in relation to the central star." This is indeed straightforwardly the case for a spherically symmetric mass inside the sphere, but what about an arbitrary, non-spherically-symmetric mass distribution? -- JorisvS ( talk) 00:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
And what happens if one breaks the spherical symmetry of the Dyson shell itself? -- JorisvS ( talk) 00:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Given the speculative nature of the idea, the numerous engineering and practical difficulties which it would present, I think the article should either be reclassified as a fictitious construct (as opposed to in the "Natural Sciences" section), or a more compelling discussion on the technical difficulties should be included. In particular, there seems to be no mention as to why one would expect intelligent life to deploy this form of technology over more flexible alternatives such as variants of nuclear power.
The fact that the idea has been published in "Science" does not automatically mean that it is technologically relevant.
150.203.179.56 ( talk) 01:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
2 things a shell is unlikely to contain: neutrinos & gravitational radiation. Yes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.146.67 ( talk) 06:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Is http://starshipconf.ucsd.edu temporarily down or for good? Vbond ( talk) 22:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to throw a lot of dirt on the fire here, but outside of the stability argument, another aspect to the infeasibility of a D sphere is the null gravitational field on the inside of the shell. No thing could be on the inside, assuming near perfect symmetry. All things standing on teh surface would fall to the star. Sorry, just thought that it should be mentioned in the article, as did not see it, also, sorry that i cant document this or myself correctly to save my life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.180.192 ( talk) 07:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
This has to do with the support of a Dyson Sphere by magnetic attraction to rings that orbit a star at super-orbital speeds in evacuated tubes. The article claims: "The arrangement of such tracks suffers from the same difficulties as arranging the orbits of a Dyson swarm". This is a false statement. The orbits of solar collectors in a Dyson swarm need to avoid shadowing each other excessively to efficiently collect power. The super-orbital rings do not need to avoid shadowing each other. There ought to be a reliable source for this false statement if it is to be kept in the article. So I am tagging it {{citation needed}}. Fartherred ( talk) 09:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Please explain the lack of a link to solar wind in this article.
Given the recent space achievement of reaching the Heliopause, I find this peculiar. Is a link to Magnetosphere also lacking?
Dyson's important ideas were sometimes backed with rigourous thinking and proofs: no Dysonian heretic should be shy to add links to solar wind and Magnetosphere even if only in See Also.
I think part of a shell would choose to break away and sail off (the article mentions "solar sails".)
Personally, I do not rank this as a "thought experiment" in the tradition to which Dyson rightly belongs as a physicist. I place it with his view of how little harm religion has done, as the women stoned by their own brother throwing the first rock have not yet communicated their views to him as have not yet the desperate widows who threw themselves onto funeral pyres, nor the women who were kept illiterate by religion or sold so as not to have dowries or drown at birth ... as all technically advanced hominids develop a shell of culture woven with myth. Even Taoism became a religion ... perhaps due to roads connecting cities.
If you believe that technically advanced beings abandon their home planet and can be found by infrared signature, then these should turn up eventually where habitable exo-planets are expected but not found ... among the now estimated billions of such planets in this galaxy. Or we could wait to approach Andromeda for a better view ... ;-)
In the natural world, would these shells invite predation? Parasitism? Epiphytes?
All in good humour, if not in good time (space permitting ...)
G. Robert Shiplett 13:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
The purpose of an encyclopedia article should be to present the facts. The facts are a "sphere" cannot exist and this was pointed out in letters to Dyson after his original Science article. He made a point of qualifying that he never intended it to be conceived of as a "sphere" but was instead a set of orbiting satellites, i.e. a "shell". This entire topic should be removed and a "Dyson Sphere" should be documented as a fictional construct of the Science News writer who misinterpreted what Dyson was saying. I have this literature online for anyone who would like to review it. A "Dyson Sphere" is entirely a *fictional concept* which cannot exist (at least using known materials) in reality. The entire contents should be moved to a "Dyson Shell" topic where it is made completely clear that a "sphere" cannot easily exist using known physics. A shell of orbiting satellites however is completely feasible. Any and all pictures portraying a "sphere" should be removed and the reasons why a true sphere using "classical" materials is not viable should be documented. The mistaken concept of a "Dyson Sphere" which is largely impossible should be replaced with more reasonable concepts, e.g. Dyson Shells or Matrioshka Brains. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertBradbury ( talk • contribs) 09:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone explored the concept of a Dyson sphere in which the orbiting objects are allowed to push on one another? For example, as an object orbits it uses a superconducting magnet or the like to remain a constant distance from each continual stream of objects orbiting in a different plane that it encounters, weaving back and forth from the star. It would seem like such a scheme could ensure complete capture of all sunlight from the star with not very much waste over a solid shell, with minimal energy usage, but engineering it would be formidable (i.e. if you come up with something I'd love to read about it). Wnt ( talk) 16:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Is this addition really appropriate? The original paper from the Royal Astronomical Society [1] doesn't make any mention of any extra-terrestrial explanation, never mind a dyson sphere. The speculation is coming from media coverage of one astronomer (Jason Wright of Penn State) who wasn't involved in the original discovery. Pongley ( talk) 15:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I am pretty sure that a Dyson shell WOULD be stable around a sufficiently bright object. For example, if the star drifts towards the edge of the Dyson shell, then the radiation pressure would press HARDER against the surface it was approaching, and SOFTER against the surface it was moving away from. This would press the Dyson shell along, and keep it away from the star. 32ieww ( talk) 22:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
The wording is counter-intuitive, that the density of a sail would be 0.78 g/m2, because the radiation pressure is not a constant. It varies according to your distance to the star. But in the linked reference the argument was given that as you move closer to the star, radiation pressure increases, but so does gravity, and so these effects cancel. By the way, radiation pressure of a variable star is not constant, and our sun is slightly variable. It would improve the article to state both of these facts. -- 135.23.66.249 ( talk) 01:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Dyson sphere. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
If a civilization bases its hopes on a Dyson sphere, it will certainly die soon! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4100:6F00:E1EC:675D:2BEA:9B91 ( talk) 14:00, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Is it specified in any of the sources how the star's energy is actually harvested? I would have thought of solar panels, obviously, but this isn't mentioned anywhere. -- Felix Tritschler ( talk) 18:28, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
There are many users that want to include Birch Worlds in the section, although there are no serious sources that include the Birch World - the three main sources are a Stellaris Mod, the game Spore, and the Simple English Dictionary. Should we thus include Birch Worlds in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.88.72.203 ( talk) 00:08, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
The article Dyson spheres in popular culture should be a section in this article since neither of them are extremely large and both talk about Dyson Spheres, with the main article of DS having a small section that redirects into the Dyson spheres in popular culture article. Kaitary ( talk) 09:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
This topic is also being discussed in the talk page of the 'Dyson spheres in popular culture' article, so I figured it would be productive and good if anyone working on either article could give their stance on this. Kaitary ( talk) 09:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Following on from the Good article reassessment, I'm now planning to remove the remaining large chunks of unsourced and poorly sourced speculative text from this article. The objectionable material has been tagged for long enough, and now has to go. MichaelMaggs ( talk) 09:17, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
P Aculeius (and others): Do any sources on the topic of this article—
Dyson spheres—discuss the Star Trek episode? See
WP:PROPORTION: 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.
(other ways of explaining the same concept in the context of fiction-related articles can be found at
MOS:POPCULT and the essays
WP:CARGO and
WP:IPCV). "On the subject" is key here; it is not sufficient for sources on Star Trek (or that specific episode) to mention it.
TompaDompa (
talk) 13:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
one of the more notable references in fictionBy what metric? The metric that counts here is WP:PROPORTION, i.e. the coverage in sources on the topic at hand. TompaDompa ( talk) 14:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
clearly a notable occurrence, but that's your opinion. Do sources on the overarching topic of this article— Dyson spheres—view it as such, as evidenced by covering it non-trivially? If so, add those sources. The number of pageviews Relics (Star Trek: The Next Generation) gets compared to e.g. The Wanderer (Leiber novel) is irrelevant—what matters is whether sources on the overarching topic discuss these fictional examples. Likewise, it doesn't matter if an example is from an on-screen medium or literature—what matters is the coverage in sources on the topic. That Freeman Dyson commented on it is an interesting piece of trivia for the episode, but it does not confer weight to its prominence in the overall literature on the topic of Dyson spheres (or their depiction in fiction).On the subject of what other editors think, you may have noticed that I was not actually the first editor to edit the page after you—that was MichaelMaggs, who also emphasized the issue of relevance to this article (but thought inclusion was in principle okay). TompaDompa ( talk) 14:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
You seem to want sources to say how notable one depiction is relative to other depictions before it can be included or discussed; I don't think this view will find much support in the Wikipedia community.No, that's not what I said. Read what I wrote again. However, that relevance is determined by sources on the topic, not by the opinions of Wikipedia editors, is codified in Wikipedia's WP:Core content policy of WP:PROPORTION. Mind you that
This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.(emphasis in original).
Quite a lot of editors seem to agree that it is a notable depiction; their opinions are just as valid as yours.Here you entirely correct, if only by mistake: their opinions, and yours, are equally irrelevant as mine. I should not have to tell you that the viewpoints of editors are irrelevant; this is a very basic level of understanding of our WP:Neutrality policy (
The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is irrelevant and should not be considered.). TompaDompa ( talk) 14:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
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.) was very obviously way out of proportion. It was a devoted paragraph all to itself, consisting of multiple sentences, way more than any other work of fiction got despite other works of fiction featuring more prominently in the secondary literature on the topic. I don't see how you can claim otherwise.Lest we forget: you added this, were reverted through a series of edits by two editors, and then re-added it without discussion. I tagged the issues duly identified by me as well as MichaelMaggs only after you had unilaterally reintroduced the disputed material, as a second-best option for the moment. TompaDompa ( talk) 15:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
treat[ing] each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject, as mandated by WP:PROPORTION? TompaDompa ( talk) 15:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
How much space is devoted to works of literature in literature about a subject is only one measure of significance.That's true, but the coverage in the literature on the topic is the measure Wikipedia uses in assigning due weight, as a matter of policy. You keep ignoring this very central point as though it were optional to abide by.
a paragraph on each would not make this section unwieldyA paragraph on each would be disproportionate both in terms of the coverage they get by the sources relative to each other and in terms of the coverage Dyson spheres get in the sources as a fictional concept compared to as a theoretical concept. TompaDompa ( talk) 16:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
FWIW, I removed the circular sourcing and replaced it with secondary sources using Space.com and Popular Mechanics, although the latter only has the merest mention of the episode. I hope this helps. ThaddeusSholto ( talk) 16:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
for being "unsourced" even though it clearly identified the source, it was removed for lacking proper sourcing. That is to say, lacking sourcing on the overarching topic: Dyson spheres (or their depiction in fiction). The fact that you felt it necessary to cite the primary source itself for the plot details—rather than getting them from the relevant sources on the overarching topic—should tell you something. If sources on the overarching topic do not cover the plot details, those plot details are not an important WP:ASPECT of the overarching topic even if they are an important aspect of the episode itself.This level of detail could dubiously be justified at a hypothetical Dyson spheres in fiction article that also goes into much more detail about the works of fiction deemed by the sources to be major examples, but it is way out of WP:PROPORTION to its significance to this topic— Dyson spheres. We currently devote 50 words to describing in-universe details of a Star Trek episode that, going by the sources on the overarching topic, is a rather minor example. The article currently says
The USS Enterprise is trapped in a Dyson Sphere [...]. It is the first such structure to be discovered, and is measured at two hundred million kilometers in diameter. The sphere has been abandoned by its inhabitants, apparently because its central sun has become unstable, emitting dangerous solar flares and radiation.Why mention that the Enterprise is trapped on the inside? Why mention that it is the first to be discovered (in-universe)? Why go into details about how the central star has become unstable? How important is the exact size? A much, much briefer summary could for instance be
[In the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode " Relics",] a Dyson sphere that has been abandoned after its central star became unstable appears.or for that matter
[...] an abandoned Dyson sphere whose central star has become unstable appears.TompaDompa ( talk) 19:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subjectI mean exactly that, I assure you it will all make a lot more sense to you. For starters: I cleaned up Dyson spheres in popular culture from a version that was a TV Tropes-style list that did not have any sources on the overarching topic whatsoever and turned it into a brief prose article based on sources about the overarching topic. Maybe this is a novel approach to you, but it is a tried-and-tested one for articles like this—indeed, there are even articles that were improved from precisely that kind of list without proper sourcing to WP:Featured article status, namely Mars in fiction (which I rewrote from scratch) and Venus in fiction (which Piotrus cleaned up, followed by the two of us collaborating on bringing it up to FA quality). The reason those articles (as well as Sun in fiction, which was not converted from a bad article to a quality one but which I wrote properly from the start) can be of FA quality is precisely that they do indeed abide by WP:PROPORTION by relying on sources on their respective overarching topics for establishing the appropriate relative weight of different aspects and examples. That the Dyson spheres in popular culture article was never improved to that level of quality by way of expansion is largely a result of high-quality sources on that topic being comparatively scarce. You can scoff at removing material for lacking proper sourcing, but you must realize that certain sourcing requirements (which differ from context to context) are an integral part of how Wikipedia works. Your assertion that
in most instances the source was obvious, and what you could have done was look for other sources or provide citationsleads me to believe that you (still!) do not understand what kind of sourcing is actually required here.You seem to be under the impression that editors, not sources, decide what's relevant to a topic (seeing as you have said
Quite a lot of editors seem to agree that it is a notable depiction; their opinions are just as valid as yours.and
The fact that fifteen different editors have thought it notable and relevant [...] should have suggested that it's a notable example, as well as other things along similar lines). That's just not how Wikipedia works. I know I sound like a broken record, but please read and understand WP:PROPORTION (and the rest of WP:NPOV, for that matter): articles should
treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. That's sources, not editors—surely you must understand that?You also seem to be under the impression that my objection to the Star Trek example has been that I disapprove of it per se. I put it to you that this is nonsensical in light of the fact that I repeatedly brought up the issue of whether there are sources that would make its inclusion WP:PROPORTION-compliant (
Do any sources on the topic of this article— Dyson spheres—discuss the Star Trek episode?and
Do sources on the overarching topic of this article— Dyson spheres—view it as such, as evidenced by covering it non-trivially? If so, add those sources.and
All this said, if we do find (at least decent-quality) sources on the topic of Dyson spheres, or their depictions in fiction, that mention the Star Trek episode, then we can mention it here [...] I'll go looking for adequate sources. If I find any, I will add them) and then located such sources and added them to the article. I have no reason to want to remove the Star Trek example now as it is, even if not well-sourced, at least adequately-sourced. Again, if you just assume that I mean precisely what I say when I make reference to abiding by WP:PROPORTION, you will certainly find that it makes much more sense.You must not have read what MichaelMaggs wrote particularly carefully, or else you are deliberately misrepresenting what they said, because they didn't say that the episode was trivial or trivia, they said that the plot description (specifically The USS Enterprise is trapped. The sphere is the first such structure to be discovered, and is measured at two hundred million kilometers in diameter. It has been abandoned by its inhabitants, apparently because its central sun has become unstable, emitting dangerous solar flares and radiation—note that the episode title was not mentioned) was.I don't mean to be rude, but have you considered the possibility that maybe you are simply in the wrong here? You say that the discussion got "heated" and "out of control"—I put it to you that I, and other editors, explained why we disagree repeatedly (often with clearly-outlined policy-based reasons to back those positions up), while you got irate and accused others of wrongdoing and malicious intent. TompaDompa ( talk) 18:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
The Enterprise discovers a huge object that might be a Dyson sphere, with a crashed ship on it. Inside the ship, they find two patterns in the transporter buffer, and manage to rematerialize former Enterprise Chief Engineer Montgomery Scott, who has been preserved for seventy-five years in the transporter. The Enterprise then enters the Dyson sphere, and the crew studies the structure with interest, before realizing that the ship is trapped, and threatened by dangerous radiation from the sphere's central star.
While the crew works to free the Enterprise from the Dyson sphere, Scotty tries to come to terms with being seventy-five years in the future, with his crewmate and everyone he knew now dead, and hopelessly out of place in the twenty-fourth century. He interacts with various members of the crew, in some case with callbacks to his more memorable scenes from the original Star Trek.
After a long talk with Captain Picard aboard a replica of the original Enterprise bridge on the holodeck, Scotty has much to think about. With moments to spare, the Enterprise finds a way to open the gate of the Dyson sphere, and escapes to safety. Scotty bids a sentimental farewell to his new friends, as he goes to make a new life for himself.
That's precisely what kind of description that should be in this article: not what happens in the episode, but how the Dyson sphere is portrayed.This may shock you, but I actually agree with this part—provided that it is in WP:PROPORTION
to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. TompaDompa ( talk) 22:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
I submit that the description of "Relics" as I wrote it is not out of proportion to its treatment in non-fiction literature about the subject of Dyson spheres.– Right, now we're talking. All that's left now is to demonstrate that this is indeed the case.
That body of literature is not very substantial in the first place, precisely because [...]– It is comparatively sparse, yes, but it's not like there isn't extensive literature on completely unrealistic science fiction concepts. Time travel is a good example.
Any fictional treatment of Dyson spheres mentioned in non-fiction literature about the subject is likely notable– Just to make sure that we're talking about the same thing, WP:Notability in the Wikipedia sense is not what's relevant here. Whether something is an important/significant/relevant/major WP:ASPECT is.
"Relics" is one of the few examples of Dyson spheres in fiction that is is mentioned in such literature– I have to ask: have you surveyed the literature on the topic? Because I have (assuming the topic we're talking about is specifically the depiction of Dyson sphere in fiction and not Dyson spheres in general), and while I can't claim that it was exhaustive, it should at least be a representative sample of the relatively high-quality sources that exist (e.g. the "Dyson Sphere" entry in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction). I don't know where you would draw the line for "few" examples, but we're talking at least a dozen and a half (more if counting sequels separately) even if we are fairly restrictive in what sources we consider—and "Relics" is not one of the works most frequently mentioned, or one of the works discussed the most in-depth, or one of the works typically covered by the most high-quality sources.
The same would be true of any of the novels named: if they're significant enough to be mentioned at all, then it's fair to provide a description of the Dyson spheres [...] One paragraph apiece on the most prominent examples does not seem excessive, but if the section did become quite large, it might be appropriate to split the list back into a separate article again.– See above about the number of works we would be talking about. It would be completely out of WP:PROPORTION here at this article. Dyson spheres are primarily a hypothetical, not fictional concept. Now I was opposed to merging Dyson spheres in popular culture here (though it should really have been called Dyson spheres in fiction), but if we're going to split the fiction section off it should be because there is consensus that it would be a better way to cover the topic, not just becomes it becomes unmanageably bloated. Adding a bunch of raw data—whether you want to call it "plot description", "in-universe details", or something else—from the works of fiction themselves does not an article make (see the essay WP:CARGO for details). What you are describing is in fact basing an article chiefly on WP:Primary sources, which is not how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is not, nor is it supposed to be, a secondary source where editorial interpretation, analysis, and synthesis is allowed (or even encouraged).
One paragraph apiece on the most prominent examples– Out of curiosity: how would you determine which the most prominent examples are?I'm sure that you would agree that if a hypothetical book-length source on the topic devoted an entire chapter to work A and only a sentence to work B, that would indicate that work A is a more important instance of this topos than work B, and our article should reflect this difference in relative weight placed upon the two works by the relevant literature, right? Likewise if twenty sources discuss work C and only one work D—right?
But to return to "Relics", it's likely that more people have watched that episode of Star Trek than have read all of the novels mentioned combined, and that more people first encountered—or at least became familiar with—the Dyson sphere concept due to watching "Relics" than through all of the scholarly literature on the topic.– Maybe, but that's irrelevant here. Coverage in the secondary literature is what matters.
And as the only example of the concept in fiction which we know that Freeman Dyson himself commented upon– It isn't. He very specifically commented upon Olaf Stapledon's Star Maker, indeed even noting that's where he got the idea from.
And as the only example of the concept in fiction which we know that Freeman Dyson himself commented upon, the episode is particularly worthy of mention– Dyson commenting on the episode is interesting, and if we are going to cover the episode I think it's worth briefly mentioning, but it does not in itself mean that the episode should be covered here—that comes down to the coverage
in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. Dyson commenting on the episode is information about the episode (and should therefore be covered on the article about the episode: Relics (Star Trek: The Next Generation)), not about the topic of this article— Dyson spheres. TompaDompa ( talk) 11:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
the amount of coverage found in "serious" literature is not the sole factor to consider: familiarity to the general public is perfectly relevant– That's just straight-up wrong when it comes to weight. Please read and understand WP:PROPORTION (and the rest of WP:NPOV, for that matter): articles should
treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. It doesn't say "proportional to its familiarity to the general public", now does it? In fact, WP:NPOV explicitly states more generally that
The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is irrelevant and should not be considered.
Merely naming notable examples of Dyson spheres in fiction is of little value to the reader– I don't entirely disagree, but what is of value to the reader is not pure description of in-universe details either, but rather overarching analysis—which of course needs to come from the sources, not editors. The essay WP:CARGO describes this very well, methinks. TompaDompa ( talk) 16:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
"Treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject" does not mean, "the maximum length of discussion in Wikipedia is determined exclusively by the length of discussion in reliable, published material on the subject."– No, but it does mean that when sources give a lot of weight to X so should we, and when they give only a little weight to Y so should we. As WP:NPOV points out, it's not just about length:
Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery.I wouldn't presume to tell you what Uncle G meant when they wrote the essay WP:CARGO back in 2008, but we can always just ask as they are still active on Wikipedia. The point I was making above is that in writing articles like this, analysis is paramount and examples are secondary/complementary to that analysis, and I think the "Collecting raw data does not produce an analysis" paragraph is a good way of explaining that concept.
In their opinion, one paragraph describing the Dyson sphere from "Relics" is not disproportionate and does not violate NPOV.– Great, then back that up with sources and we should all reach agreement. I have, as I stated above, made an actual attempt to survey the relevant literature—and I came to the conclusion that based on the sources, "Relics" is a relatively WP:MINORASPECT. Have you likewise surveyed the literature on the topic (i.e. not just gone looking for sources that cover "Relics"), or is it your opinion that it is
a particularly noteworthy example of a Dyson sphere in fiction? TompaDompa ( talk) 18:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
It's your opinion that it shouldn't be discussed in any detail as a "minor aspect".– No, it isn't. As in, that's not the position I have taken. Have you read what I have written?
And I don't need secondary sources to say "this treatment is more important than that one" or "the following are the most important treatments of this subject in fiction"—there will rarely ever be that kind of discussion in the literature—all the more so because Dyson spheres are themselves hypothetical and improbable.– No, but surely you understand that the coverage in sources can indicate variations in relative weight in other ways than explicit statements about relative weight? As I said above: surely you would agree that if a hypothetical book-length source on the topic devoted an entire chapter to work A and only a sentence to work B, that would indicate that work A is a more important instance of this topos than work B, and our article should reflect this difference in relative weight placed upon the two works by the relevant literature, right? Likewise if twenty sources discuss work C and only one work D—right?Your second paragraph boils down to Wikipedia's WP:Core content policies, specifically WP:NPOV and WP:PROPORTION in particular, being optional and subject to being overridden by local consensus. That's just not how Wikipedia works. That the sources are what determine the relative weight of different aspects, not editors, isn't just my opinion—it's a fundamental aspect of how Wikipedia works and such a basic level of understanding thereof that I honestly kind of assumed that you did not need it to be explained. 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) 18:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
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.means? TompaDompa ( talk) 19:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
why you would read that as a precise description of the length of a contribution– I have to admit that I'm not sure exactly what you meant by this, but your reference to "a precise description of the length" suggests to me that you think I hold some (unclear) position that I do not.
a vague guide that reasonable editors could differ on– Let's say for the sake of argument that it is. What does
treat[ing] each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subjectmean to you, then?
Describing the diameter, surface area, mass, or brief notes on the structure or structural defects of the Dyson sphere in two or three sentences isn't excessive by any criteria.– Are those the WP:ASPECTS that sources in the topic focus on? If not, it would be out of WP:PROPORTION to the coverage of those aspects in
in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. TompaDompa ( talk) 17:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
In their opinion, one paragraph describing the Dyson sphere from "Relics" is not disproportionate and does not violate NPOV.? The editor who said
what we in the current reversion seems fine (two sentences, one about the episode, one about Dyson's own commentary)back when the current version looked like this and categorically did not have
one paragraph describing the Dyson sphere from "Relics"? TompaDompa ( talk) 18:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
The USS Enterprise is trapped in a Dyson Sphere in the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode "Relics", and its novelization. It is the first such structure to be discovered, and is measured at two hundred million kilometers in diameter. The sphere has been abandoned by its inhabitants, apparently because its central sun has become unstable, emitting dangerous solar flares and radiation. In an interview, Freeman Dyson said that he enjoyed the episode, although he considered the concept of such an engineering marvel to be "nonsense". [internal citations omitted]
In the 1992 episode "Relics" of the TV show Star Trek: The Next Generation, the USS Enterprise finds itself trapped in an abandoned Dyson Sphere.
"The Dyson sphere originated in fiction, and it is a concept that has appeared often in science fiction since then. In fictional accounts, Dyson spheres are most often depicted as a Dyson shell with the gravitational and engineering difficulties of this variant noted above largely ignored."
numerous editors over the last three years asserting that "Relics" is a particularly notable example of a Dyson sphere in fiction– And backing that assertion up with what sources? The opinions of editors do not matter in establishing due weight, which I'm sure I don't have to tell you.I'll be blunt: you are clearly working backwards from the assumption that "Relics" is an important aspect of this topic. You have not based that on coverage in the sources, but rather on things that make it seem important to you, personally.
TompaDompa decided that it's not "proportionate" to its importance in literature about Dyson spheres. Which is somewhat ironic, considering that there's not much serious literature [...]– I have pointed you to several sources that cover the topic of Dyson spheres in fiction. If you think my assessment of those sources is wrong, make an argument to that effect rather than dismissing it out of hand based on your personal intuition about what should be covered. If you think I have missed important literature that would change my assessment, point to that literature and I'll reassess.
any notable work of fiction that substantially involves a Dyson sphere (i.e. not just passing mentions) should be included– That would mean basing the article or section chiefly on WP:Primary sources, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. What you are describing is how TV Tropes lists are created, not Wikipedia articles. TompaDompa ( talk) 17:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)