![]() | 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 5 |
I found it inconvenient that you had to look two places to see if a star had details, so I merged them. Improved the description as well. -- GwydionM 15:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I made the following changes to the list:
RandomCritic 23:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I removed this addition, for a couple of reasons:
Until this information becomes verifiable, it doesn't belong in this list. RandomCritic 14:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Would {{ tocright}} be less intrusive than {{ tocleft}}? - ∅ ( ∅), 10:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
There's a band named Rosetta. Their first album is The Galilean Satellites. The main theme in their lyrics is Europa, the Jupiter Moon, and several songs are named after stars and moons eg: Ross 128, Deneb, Beta Aquilae, etc. Thought it might enrich the article a tiny bit. Here's the link [ [1]]
-- I1100a 21:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the aliens' home star in The Arrival in Wolf 336, not 424. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.20 ( talk) 01:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Could also have been referenced in Starcraft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.229.188 ( talk) 15:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Contact with Chaos -- Micheal Williamson (Baen Books) 69.23.124.142 ( talk) 08:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
There was an old B Movie I saw on TV back in the late 70s/early 80s, I think it was the one to do with Native American or "Alien" mummies and some young guy in a wheelchair who was possessed by some intelligence. Anyway, the alien intelligences in this cheesy film were said to come from Bernard's Star. I have no idea what it was, probably not even in IMDB since it was one of those silly little Saturday Afternoon films they show sometimes. EDIT: I just found it, it was called "The Alien Encounters" from 1979. Mind boggilingly dull and silly but totally watchable to a 10 year old boy (me) who was stuck inside in rainy Oregon :-) Yanqui9 ( talk) 22:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I won't post it in the main article under the original content rules, but a story called "Payback" in Analog Science Fiction and Fact, July-August 2009, uses Achird as the seat of a civilization that attacks our solar system with an interstellar ramjet starkiller. The author is named Tom Ligon. Tomligon ( talk) 03:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
In fact, the aliens refer to themselves as Antareans and they say they come from a planet called Antarea. Source Devil Master ( talk) 16:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Cherryh uses Barnard's star in one of her books, but I'm not sure which one. Could some one add it in if they know it, or I will when I can find the reference.-- C.J. ( talk • contribs) 23:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Barnard's Star is also the name of a weapon in the video game "Diablo II". Not sure if that counts as fiction for the purposes of this article though... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.89.215.42 ( talk) 21:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Was the original destination for the generation ship in Non-Stop by Brian W. Aldiss —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.107.122 ( talk) 22:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
In the OMNI Book Astropilots by Laura J. Mixon the main male character Jason Stiletto and his friend Sssrei are both from 40 Eridani II. Jason is from the colony world around 40 Eridani II, and Sssrei is a native of that world.
I don't know if info should go into this section or another section. Feel free to move or add it. (cyalknight@gmail.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.177.226.79 ( talk) 09:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Should be added since used in Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time and others 174.30.211.58 ( talk) 01:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC) soupy
I added entries for Arcturus (Book of Dreams), Beta Aquarii (Rhialto), Capella (Emphyrio), Gamma Orionis (Blade Runner, Babel-17), Phi Orionis (Space Opera).
I attempted to put the added books in the correct chronological "spot" under each star, but for some stars there are so many undated existing entries that I could not be sure I got it exactly right.
I also fixed the formatting of several existing starnames to fit the convention <linked name> (<unlinked name in parentheses>). I fixed one broken line. OperaJoeGreen ( talk) 07:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
In February of 2007 RandomCritic made the following changes to the list:
It's been four years since then, and many - perhaps most - of the entries no longer conform to this standard. In particular, many entries lack a date.
I decided to see if it was practical to clean up the sub-entries under Capella (Alpha Aurigae). In fact it was possible to use the links provided in each one of the sub-entries to get a date from the relevant Wikipedia articles.
Using this information, I:
You see the result on the article page.
Continue the cleanup process demonstrated on the Capella prototype with other stars, starting at the top of the star list. This will probably take some time (I do have a day job!). Comments welcome. OperaJoeGreen ( talk) 21:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
This article is flagged as
This article needs additional citations for verification.
What type of citations are desired?
It seems to me that most of the entries in this list are self-verifying. For example, to verify the information about Jack Vance's Emphyrio:
OperaJoeGreen ( talk) 21:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Nothing from Star Control II is included here even though Rigel, Delta Pavonis, Alpha Centauri feature in the game 76.10.167.187 ( talk) 01:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt it had been a good idea to move the article to Planetary systems in fiction. There are also depicted stars in fiction without planetary systems. I have just inserted such an example into the article Alpha Centauri in fiction. In this case—in Edmund Cooper`s Seed of Light—, a crew of astronauts hopes over years to find planets around Alpha Centauri and is then disappointed when they see that the star does not possess a planetary system. That is a decisive event in the novel, and should be counted worthwhile being described in Wikipedia due to the great importance of Seed of Light in science fiction (Seed of Light is counted Cooper`s possibly best novel—see Hans Joachim Alpers et al: Reclams Science Fiction Führer. Reclam, Stuttgart 1982, p.106). The article Alpha Centauri in fiction is, at the moment, in the table of contents of the article Planetary systems in fiction so that there arises a clear contradiction. I assume there will also be many other, similar cases. I don`t think it would be very useful to set up a new, separate article on Stars [without planetary systems] in fiction. The user who has moved the article to Planetary systems in fiction has also not yet adapted all double links, for example not that from Stars in fiction nor that from Procyon in fiction. I therefore plead the move should be reverted. -- Hans Dunkelberg ( talk) 00:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
One could fear that "Stars and planetary systems in fiction" might exclude star systems (multiple stars). But the very plural "Stars" already includes that, doesn`t it? Regarding the proposal "Extrasolar systems in fiction": would that not be a little unclear, because one could misunderstand it as also including systems of galaxies? -- Hans Dunkelberg ( talk) 16:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Correct. "Planetary systems in fiction" simply does not hit the subject of the article. Regarding the smaller, and bigger, astronomical objects that I mentioned: There are own articles on Asteroids in fiction, Nebulae in fiction, and Comets in fiction. These can easily be found on Category:Astronomical locations in fiction.
I`d say it would not be a problem to list a page Stars and planetary systems in fiction in Category:Planetary systems in fiction. In this category, there are not yet many—to be exact: not yet any—real extrasolar planetary systems that would already have been reviewed by authors of fiction. There are, so far, only the three pages Planetary systems in fiction, Solar System in fiction, and the Leigh Brackett Solar System. I`m not sure if this latter should really be listed, there, because this fictitious system seems very widely to be our usual Solar System, which have been added to certain fictitious traits. That might, at the end, not be anything different than what any other author of fiction might do with our usual Solar System so that the page would probably rather only belong into Category:Solar System in fiction, where it is, actually, already listed. To hint to the special difficulties of this case, I`d like to cite from the beginning of the article:
The Leigh Brackett Solar System is a fictional analogue to the real-world Solar System in which a majority of the planetary romances of Leigh Brackett take place. Although Brackett's stories do not form a series with a consistent chronology and causally-connected incidents, more than half of them are recognizably set in the same universe: a Solar System of the near future, with space travel and distinctive alien and human cultures on Mercury, Venus, Mars, the Asteroids, and the moons of Jupiter and Saturn. The stories of the Brackett Universe are bound together by shared terminology, place-names, "facts" about biology and culture, and occasionally shared characters. For instance, Brackett's Mercury is a nightmare world of extremes, where powerful storms rack a narrow habitable twilight belt; her Venus is a place where the liha-trees grow in the swamps around embattled outworld cities; and Mars is a place where you can drink thil at Madame Kan's in Jekkara of the Low Canals, or wander among barbarian warriors in the northern Drylands of Kesh and Shun.
-- Hans Dunkelberg ( talk) 09:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I would like to draw readers' attention to the ongoing discussion of a proposal to delete a large number of articles similar to this one, at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aldebaran_in_fiction. RandomCritic ( talk) 13:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I have completed the cleanup project for this article (see the details in the next section).
There are a number of stars in this list (Aldebaran is the first one of them) that send the reader to independent articles. These are stars that have too many fictional references to fit conveniently into the main list. The "child" articles (Aldebaran in fiction, etc.) all need the same kind of cleanup as the "parent" article (Stars and planetary systems in fiction).
Having finished the main list, I will next proceed to extend the cleanup project to:
Watch the ten stars above for a continuing record of my progress in cleaning up the child articles. OperaJoeGreen ( talk) 15:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
The general format for items in this list is:
The proper form of items is efficiently explained by examples. Several types follow.
Where possible, use citations to substantiate your item. Primary references to the work itself, including page numbers for books, can facilitate verification of assertions you make. Secondary references (eg critical analyses for print and film, review sites for games, and/or Wikis such as "Memory Alpha" for Star Trek and "Halopedia" for Halo) that discuss or analyze the work help establish the "notability" of your item (that is, help show that it is not trivial). When you create citations, do not attempt to compose them yourself. Learn about and use the "Cite book", "Cite news", and "Cite web" templates that are available to editors.
I have removed a number of trivial items from this list. For example, under the star Beta Hydri I removed the item:
This is a shame, really. The book is a science fiction classic, and the location of the planetary reference is fairly well documented. But the story of the novel takes place wholly on the Earth. Nobody is going to Beta Hydri, nobody is from Beta Hydri, none of the action takes place on Beta Hydri. If a planet is only mentioned in a work, or appears only briefly without a real part to play in the work, that's not substantial enough for this list. Avoid trivial items!
Thanks everybody for your help in keeping this list healthy!
OperaJoeGreen ( talk) 16:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Should be added since used in Harry Potter: Half-Blood Prince 174.30.211.58 ( talk) 01:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)soupy
It may be worthwhile to mention to spectral types of the listed stars with or under thir names as this would tell those readers who understand a bit of science a lot about those systems at a glance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.43.180 ( talk) 21:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
In the 1950s film "Forbidden planet", starring Walter Pigeon, Lesley Neilson, Anne Francis and Robby the Robot, the action took place on the planet Altair 4, presumably a planet revoving round the star Altair. AT Kunene ( talk) 17:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Mlindroo moved the Proxima Centauri items out of this article to a separate article of their own, as has been done in the past with other stars that accumulated an excess of items. Those other stars, with their current numbers of items, are:
RandomCritic did some of the early organizing of this article. My guess is that his criterion for moving stars out to their own articles was 25 items or more.
Proxima Centauri currently has 17 items. That's greater than average, but not yet enough to merit its own article. It is not clear why Proxima Centauri attracted Mlindroo's attention in this way. Arcturus (18), Barnard's Star (18), Fomalhaut (23)(!), and Procyon (18) all have more items. And no! I'm not suggesting that they be moved out to their own articles!
I'd like to propose that we formalize the "25-and-out" rule. In line with this, unless there are strong arguments to the contrary, in two days I will revert the Proxima Centauri change and bring those items back into this article.
Please tell me your opinion!
OperaJoeGreen ( talk) 06:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
It's frequently mentioned in S. P. Somtow's "Mallworld", IIRC usually in reference to an animal called a "gaboochi" which is presumably from a planet orbiting that star. I've no idea where my copy of the book is or I'd look it up to be certain. Over 200 hits on google for gaboochi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.232.94.33 ( talk) 10:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
In Forever War, the battle mentioned in the article happened on a regular planet in the Eplison Aurigae star system, not Formalhaut. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.200.91.99 ( talk) 10:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
The IP edit 2013 August 27 to add the Outpost reference (the order of references appears to be chronological, so I put it in the proper place) was me. My login didn't take for some reason. Featherwinglove ( talk) 07:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Gliese 754 is NOT the same system as HD 36395/Wolf 1453; the Gliese listing of HD 36395/Wolf 1453 is Gliese 205! Could someone please edit the particular section accordingly? http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/simbad/sim-id?Ident=Wolf_1453 Wackelkopp ( talk) 13:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Is it really necessary for every mention of Star Trek to include the line "as part of the film, television, and print franchise originated by Gene Roddenberry?" It gets fairly distracting, especially since the other entries don't list such accreditation, and it really reads like the whole thing was combed over and rewritten by an overzealous copyright lawyer for the Roddenberry estate or something. RyokoMocha ( talk) 03:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Added clarifying link to the section on the novel "Justine" because the brightest star in the Northern or Southern sky is Sirius, whereas Arcturus is only the brightest star in the Northern Celestial Hemisphere. See those articles for further information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:985:C100:1BFD:5D10:6482:D739:37D4 ( talk) 15:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Mentioned several times in Star Trek,
Example:
Star Trek Voyager S05E07 Infinite Regress. Minute: 25:40
i´ve heard this several times in Star Trek, and maybe also in Alien movies..
maybe also in the movie: Passengers (2016)
maybe in Prometheus (2012)
a Wolf asteroid is named in the movie: Deep Impact (1998)
with similar story as the actual Wolf 369 history, Discovered by astronomer called Dr.Wolf
maybe also mentioned in: The Arrival (1996)
maybe also in: Contact (1997)
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
186.83.225.20 (
talk)
21:21, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
In the Arcturus section, there are several entries which are people with no obvious connection to the star except for the name. Similarly in Polaris, there are several people stated as named after the star - is that enough for inclusion ? -- Beardo ( talk) 02:02, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Recently TompaDompa ( talk · contribs) has gone through and removed many items. While I am sure they are well-intentioned, I am dubious about the rationale behind many of these deletions. While I will hold off on blanket reverting their removals, I am concerned that legitimate content has been removed for spurious reasons. There are several reasons for this concern:
editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references.Given that much of the material in question had gone unchallenged before TompaDompa's edits, a sudden and substantive removal of content without providing sufficient time to provide citations is a less than desirable course of action. Citation tags (either inline or at the top of the article) would be a better choice.
Consensus at the article level can determine whether particular references which meet this criteria should be included.We don't have a consensus to remove this content. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 22:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Maybe there is cause to remove much of this content, but we should get a consensus to do so first. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 22:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Consensus at the article level can determine whether particular references which meet this criteria should be included.doesn't mean that consensus can determine that something that doesn't meet these requirements should be included in spite of that, it means that consensus can determine that something that does meet these requirements should be excluded anyway. As the preceding sentence says,
Note that this sourcing requirement is a minimum threshold for inclusion of cultural references.I also think it's self-evident that MOS:POPCULT applies to stand-alone X in fiction/popular culture/whatever articles in the same way it applies to such sections. Surely you're not suggesting that we should encourage editors to fork such sections into separate articles in order to circumvent the sourcing requirements? That would to my eye be rather egregious WP:Wikilawyering.Finally, I put it to you that we already have consensus for removing these entries that lack MOS:POPCULT-compliant sourcing. That's because the current phrasing of MOS:POPCULT is itself the result of rather lengthy discussion. Not only that, there is also quite a bit of precedent inasmuch as quite a few of these "X in fiction/popular culture/whatever" lists have been brought to WP:AfD recently(-ish) with the same outcome: pure TV Tropes-style lists that enumerate every time X is featured in fiction/popular culture/whatever being rejected in favour of rewriting the articles in prose form based on proper secondary/tertiary sources. See e.g. WP:Articles for deletion/Far future in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Eco-terrorism in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Earth in science fiction (2nd nomination), WP:Articles for deletion/Space stations and habitats in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Supernovae in fiction, and WP:Articles for deletion/Neptune in fiction. TompaDompa ( talk) 01:08, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
need secondary (or tertiary) sourcesdoes not have a firm basis in Wikipedia policy. As WP:NOR states of primary sources,
primary sources may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.As long as it does not require analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis to determine that an entry is a valid and accurate example of a stellar system appearing in a fictional work, we don't need secondary or tertiary sources for the content to remain in the article; these will merely be a necessary part of improving the article.
If a planet is only mentioned in a work, or appears only briefly without a real part to play in the work, that's not substantial enough for this list.)
Cultural references about a subject (for example how it is presented in a movie, song, television show, etc.) should not be included simply because they exist. Rather, all such references should be discussed in at least one reliable secondary source which specifically links the cultural item to the subject of the article. This source should cover the subject of the article in some depth; it should not be a source about the cultural item which merely mentions the subject.(The subject of the article here is Stars and planetary systems in fiction and the cultural item is e.g. Dune) That's the part that says that we can remove entries if they only have primary sources. All entries need sourcing that meet the MOS:POPCULT requirements. The sourcing issue and the MOS:POPCULT issue are the same. TompaDompa ( talk) 10:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Collecting raw data does not produce an analysis. The raw data can be examples, that demonstrate the analysis. (There are some elephant jokes in elephant joke, for example.) But simply amassing huge piles of them doesn't make an analysis. What makes an analysis is finding the works of experts in the field who have done analyses of the raw data, and then condensing and summarizing their published analyses into the article. (Collecting raw data and then producing our own novel analyses of those data is, of course, original research that is forbidden here.)). Simply fixing these massive and widespread issues with the articles that remain, in the same way we have fixed such issues before with similar articles, seems a lot more sensible to me than dragging a bunch of articles to WP:AfD to relitigate this separately for every single article.There's a reason Earth in science fiction can be a WP:Good article (thanks mainly to User:Piotrus, whom I gave a WP:Deletion to Quality Award for that) after having been rewritten in prose form as a result of its nomination for deletion, that reason being that prose is much better than list format for covering this kind of information (also a reason the WP:AfDs rejected the lists in favour of prose articles in the first place). It could even conceivably be turned into a WP:Featured article with further improvements. There is absolutely no chance that the list version of that article could ever have become a WP:Featured list, nor could stars and planetary systems in fiction or binary stars in fiction. TompaDompa ( talk) 17:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
I didn't look for sources about the entries...") because you believe that looking for corroboration of existing unsourced material to be "
backwards."
have a vision of the what this article should look likeother than that it should reflect what WP:Reliable sources on the topic say. The content I have removed for lacking proper sourcing has not been removed on the grounds that it fails WP:Verifiability or constitutes WP:Original research. Talking about what WP:V recommends is missing the point entirely. As for WP:PRESERVE, what it says is that
as long as any of the facts or ideas added to an article would belong in the "finished" article, they should be retained if they meet the three article content retention policies: Neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), Verifiability, and No original research., and that is precisely the issue: does the content actually belong? Well, that's not for us to say but for WP:Reliable sources about the topic to say, because we're supposed to reflect what the sources say about the topic and to do so in WP:PROPORTION to how the sources treat each aspect. The piped link to WP:ONUS from "would belong" is also not an accident; demonstrating that the content actually does belong falls upon the editor(s) in favour of inclusion.It should hopefully go without saying that the proper way to assess how to give appropriate weight to different aspects of the topic stars and planetary systems in fiction in WP:PROPORTION to how WP:Reliable sources do so is to look at what sources about the overarching topic say. Trying to find sources for specific examples to justify their inclusion is not particularly helpful, because by doing so you're inherently skewing the results and not getting a representative view of the weight given to those aspects by
the body of reliable, published material on the subject. TompaDompa ( talk) 06:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
would belong in the "finished" articleif you haven't sought out such sources? You can't rely on WP:RS, WP:V, or MOS:POPCULT to determine that because the arena in which this dispute arises is not verification, but rather consensus.
TompaDompa's redirect of Binary stars in fiction brought this article to my attention. Regardless of if, or how many entries are restored to this list, the title seems to be misleading. All entries here seem to be of planetary systems around real stars, but the title seems to imply that it would include entirely fictional star systems as well. Perhaps a title like Real stars and planetary systems in fiction would be more suitable? TornadoLGS ( talk) 20:08, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject(see WP:PROPORTION). That's something that is very easy to do accidentally, especially when writing about fiction.Anyway, I'm planning to expand the article based on some sources I've been able to locate. Hopefully I'll be able to do that within the next few days. TompaDompa ( talk) 20:42, 1 December 2021 (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 5 |
I found it inconvenient that you had to look two places to see if a star had details, so I merged them. Improved the description as well. -- GwydionM 15:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I made the following changes to the list:
RandomCritic 23:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I removed this addition, for a couple of reasons:
Until this information becomes verifiable, it doesn't belong in this list. RandomCritic 14:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Would {{ tocright}} be less intrusive than {{ tocleft}}? - ∅ ( ∅), 10:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
There's a band named Rosetta. Their first album is The Galilean Satellites. The main theme in their lyrics is Europa, the Jupiter Moon, and several songs are named after stars and moons eg: Ross 128, Deneb, Beta Aquilae, etc. Thought it might enrich the article a tiny bit. Here's the link [ [1]]
-- I1100a 21:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the aliens' home star in The Arrival in Wolf 336, not 424. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.20 ( talk) 01:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Could also have been referenced in Starcraft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.229.188 ( talk) 15:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Contact with Chaos -- Micheal Williamson (Baen Books) 69.23.124.142 ( talk) 08:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
There was an old B Movie I saw on TV back in the late 70s/early 80s, I think it was the one to do with Native American or "Alien" mummies and some young guy in a wheelchair who was possessed by some intelligence. Anyway, the alien intelligences in this cheesy film were said to come from Bernard's Star. I have no idea what it was, probably not even in IMDB since it was one of those silly little Saturday Afternoon films they show sometimes. EDIT: I just found it, it was called "The Alien Encounters" from 1979. Mind boggilingly dull and silly but totally watchable to a 10 year old boy (me) who was stuck inside in rainy Oregon :-) Yanqui9 ( talk) 22:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I won't post it in the main article under the original content rules, but a story called "Payback" in Analog Science Fiction and Fact, July-August 2009, uses Achird as the seat of a civilization that attacks our solar system with an interstellar ramjet starkiller. The author is named Tom Ligon. Tomligon ( talk) 03:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
In fact, the aliens refer to themselves as Antareans and they say they come from a planet called Antarea. Source Devil Master ( talk) 16:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Cherryh uses Barnard's star in one of her books, but I'm not sure which one. Could some one add it in if they know it, or I will when I can find the reference.-- C.J. ( talk • contribs) 23:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Barnard's Star is also the name of a weapon in the video game "Diablo II". Not sure if that counts as fiction for the purposes of this article though... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.89.215.42 ( talk) 21:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Was the original destination for the generation ship in Non-Stop by Brian W. Aldiss —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.107.122 ( talk) 22:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
In the OMNI Book Astropilots by Laura J. Mixon the main male character Jason Stiletto and his friend Sssrei are both from 40 Eridani II. Jason is from the colony world around 40 Eridani II, and Sssrei is a native of that world.
I don't know if info should go into this section or another section. Feel free to move or add it. (cyalknight@gmail.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.177.226.79 ( talk) 09:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Should be added since used in Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time and others 174.30.211.58 ( talk) 01:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC) soupy
I added entries for Arcturus (Book of Dreams), Beta Aquarii (Rhialto), Capella (Emphyrio), Gamma Orionis (Blade Runner, Babel-17), Phi Orionis (Space Opera).
I attempted to put the added books in the correct chronological "spot" under each star, but for some stars there are so many undated existing entries that I could not be sure I got it exactly right.
I also fixed the formatting of several existing starnames to fit the convention <linked name> (<unlinked name in parentheses>). I fixed one broken line. OperaJoeGreen ( talk) 07:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
In February of 2007 RandomCritic made the following changes to the list:
It's been four years since then, and many - perhaps most - of the entries no longer conform to this standard. In particular, many entries lack a date.
I decided to see if it was practical to clean up the sub-entries under Capella (Alpha Aurigae). In fact it was possible to use the links provided in each one of the sub-entries to get a date from the relevant Wikipedia articles.
Using this information, I:
You see the result on the article page.
Continue the cleanup process demonstrated on the Capella prototype with other stars, starting at the top of the star list. This will probably take some time (I do have a day job!). Comments welcome. OperaJoeGreen ( talk) 21:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
This article is flagged as
This article needs additional citations for verification.
What type of citations are desired?
It seems to me that most of the entries in this list are self-verifying. For example, to verify the information about Jack Vance's Emphyrio:
OperaJoeGreen ( talk) 21:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Nothing from Star Control II is included here even though Rigel, Delta Pavonis, Alpha Centauri feature in the game 76.10.167.187 ( talk) 01:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt it had been a good idea to move the article to Planetary systems in fiction. There are also depicted stars in fiction without planetary systems. I have just inserted such an example into the article Alpha Centauri in fiction. In this case—in Edmund Cooper`s Seed of Light—, a crew of astronauts hopes over years to find planets around Alpha Centauri and is then disappointed when they see that the star does not possess a planetary system. That is a decisive event in the novel, and should be counted worthwhile being described in Wikipedia due to the great importance of Seed of Light in science fiction (Seed of Light is counted Cooper`s possibly best novel—see Hans Joachim Alpers et al: Reclams Science Fiction Führer. Reclam, Stuttgart 1982, p.106). The article Alpha Centauri in fiction is, at the moment, in the table of contents of the article Planetary systems in fiction so that there arises a clear contradiction. I assume there will also be many other, similar cases. I don`t think it would be very useful to set up a new, separate article on Stars [without planetary systems] in fiction. The user who has moved the article to Planetary systems in fiction has also not yet adapted all double links, for example not that from Stars in fiction nor that from Procyon in fiction. I therefore plead the move should be reverted. -- Hans Dunkelberg ( talk) 00:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
One could fear that "Stars and planetary systems in fiction" might exclude star systems (multiple stars). But the very plural "Stars" already includes that, doesn`t it? Regarding the proposal "Extrasolar systems in fiction": would that not be a little unclear, because one could misunderstand it as also including systems of galaxies? -- Hans Dunkelberg ( talk) 16:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Correct. "Planetary systems in fiction" simply does not hit the subject of the article. Regarding the smaller, and bigger, astronomical objects that I mentioned: There are own articles on Asteroids in fiction, Nebulae in fiction, and Comets in fiction. These can easily be found on Category:Astronomical locations in fiction.
I`d say it would not be a problem to list a page Stars and planetary systems in fiction in Category:Planetary systems in fiction. In this category, there are not yet many—to be exact: not yet any—real extrasolar planetary systems that would already have been reviewed by authors of fiction. There are, so far, only the three pages Planetary systems in fiction, Solar System in fiction, and the Leigh Brackett Solar System. I`m not sure if this latter should really be listed, there, because this fictitious system seems very widely to be our usual Solar System, which have been added to certain fictitious traits. That might, at the end, not be anything different than what any other author of fiction might do with our usual Solar System so that the page would probably rather only belong into Category:Solar System in fiction, where it is, actually, already listed. To hint to the special difficulties of this case, I`d like to cite from the beginning of the article:
The Leigh Brackett Solar System is a fictional analogue to the real-world Solar System in which a majority of the planetary romances of Leigh Brackett take place. Although Brackett's stories do not form a series with a consistent chronology and causally-connected incidents, more than half of them are recognizably set in the same universe: a Solar System of the near future, with space travel and distinctive alien and human cultures on Mercury, Venus, Mars, the Asteroids, and the moons of Jupiter and Saturn. The stories of the Brackett Universe are bound together by shared terminology, place-names, "facts" about biology and culture, and occasionally shared characters. For instance, Brackett's Mercury is a nightmare world of extremes, where powerful storms rack a narrow habitable twilight belt; her Venus is a place where the liha-trees grow in the swamps around embattled outworld cities; and Mars is a place where you can drink thil at Madame Kan's in Jekkara of the Low Canals, or wander among barbarian warriors in the northern Drylands of Kesh and Shun.
-- Hans Dunkelberg ( talk) 09:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I would like to draw readers' attention to the ongoing discussion of a proposal to delete a large number of articles similar to this one, at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aldebaran_in_fiction. RandomCritic ( talk) 13:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I have completed the cleanup project for this article (see the details in the next section).
There are a number of stars in this list (Aldebaran is the first one of them) that send the reader to independent articles. These are stars that have too many fictional references to fit conveniently into the main list. The "child" articles (Aldebaran in fiction, etc.) all need the same kind of cleanup as the "parent" article (Stars and planetary systems in fiction).
Having finished the main list, I will next proceed to extend the cleanup project to:
Watch the ten stars above for a continuing record of my progress in cleaning up the child articles. OperaJoeGreen ( talk) 15:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
The general format for items in this list is:
The proper form of items is efficiently explained by examples. Several types follow.
Where possible, use citations to substantiate your item. Primary references to the work itself, including page numbers for books, can facilitate verification of assertions you make. Secondary references (eg critical analyses for print and film, review sites for games, and/or Wikis such as "Memory Alpha" for Star Trek and "Halopedia" for Halo) that discuss or analyze the work help establish the "notability" of your item (that is, help show that it is not trivial). When you create citations, do not attempt to compose them yourself. Learn about and use the "Cite book", "Cite news", and "Cite web" templates that are available to editors.
I have removed a number of trivial items from this list. For example, under the star Beta Hydri I removed the item:
This is a shame, really. The book is a science fiction classic, and the location of the planetary reference is fairly well documented. But the story of the novel takes place wholly on the Earth. Nobody is going to Beta Hydri, nobody is from Beta Hydri, none of the action takes place on Beta Hydri. If a planet is only mentioned in a work, or appears only briefly without a real part to play in the work, that's not substantial enough for this list. Avoid trivial items!
Thanks everybody for your help in keeping this list healthy!
OperaJoeGreen ( talk) 16:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Should be added since used in Harry Potter: Half-Blood Prince 174.30.211.58 ( talk) 01:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)soupy
It may be worthwhile to mention to spectral types of the listed stars with or under thir names as this would tell those readers who understand a bit of science a lot about those systems at a glance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.43.180 ( talk) 21:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
In the 1950s film "Forbidden planet", starring Walter Pigeon, Lesley Neilson, Anne Francis and Robby the Robot, the action took place on the planet Altair 4, presumably a planet revoving round the star Altair. AT Kunene ( talk) 17:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Mlindroo moved the Proxima Centauri items out of this article to a separate article of their own, as has been done in the past with other stars that accumulated an excess of items. Those other stars, with their current numbers of items, are:
RandomCritic did some of the early organizing of this article. My guess is that his criterion for moving stars out to their own articles was 25 items or more.
Proxima Centauri currently has 17 items. That's greater than average, but not yet enough to merit its own article. It is not clear why Proxima Centauri attracted Mlindroo's attention in this way. Arcturus (18), Barnard's Star (18), Fomalhaut (23)(!), and Procyon (18) all have more items. And no! I'm not suggesting that they be moved out to their own articles!
I'd like to propose that we formalize the "25-and-out" rule. In line with this, unless there are strong arguments to the contrary, in two days I will revert the Proxima Centauri change and bring those items back into this article.
Please tell me your opinion!
OperaJoeGreen ( talk) 06:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
It's frequently mentioned in S. P. Somtow's "Mallworld", IIRC usually in reference to an animal called a "gaboochi" which is presumably from a planet orbiting that star. I've no idea where my copy of the book is or I'd look it up to be certain. Over 200 hits on google for gaboochi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.232.94.33 ( talk) 10:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
In Forever War, the battle mentioned in the article happened on a regular planet in the Eplison Aurigae star system, not Formalhaut. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.200.91.99 ( talk) 10:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
The IP edit 2013 August 27 to add the Outpost reference (the order of references appears to be chronological, so I put it in the proper place) was me. My login didn't take for some reason. Featherwinglove ( talk) 07:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Gliese 754 is NOT the same system as HD 36395/Wolf 1453; the Gliese listing of HD 36395/Wolf 1453 is Gliese 205! Could someone please edit the particular section accordingly? http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/simbad/sim-id?Ident=Wolf_1453 Wackelkopp ( talk) 13:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Is it really necessary for every mention of Star Trek to include the line "as part of the film, television, and print franchise originated by Gene Roddenberry?" It gets fairly distracting, especially since the other entries don't list such accreditation, and it really reads like the whole thing was combed over and rewritten by an overzealous copyright lawyer for the Roddenberry estate or something. RyokoMocha ( talk) 03:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Added clarifying link to the section on the novel "Justine" because the brightest star in the Northern or Southern sky is Sirius, whereas Arcturus is only the brightest star in the Northern Celestial Hemisphere. See those articles for further information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:985:C100:1BFD:5D10:6482:D739:37D4 ( talk) 15:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Mentioned several times in Star Trek,
Example:
Star Trek Voyager S05E07 Infinite Regress. Minute: 25:40
i´ve heard this several times in Star Trek, and maybe also in Alien movies..
maybe also in the movie: Passengers (2016)
maybe in Prometheus (2012)
a Wolf asteroid is named in the movie: Deep Impact (1998)
with similar story as the actual Wolf 369 history, Discovered by astronomer called Dr.Wolf
maybe also mentioned in: The Arrival (1996)
maybe also in: Contact (1997)
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
186.83.225.20 (
talk)
21:21, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
In the Arcturus section, there are several entries which are people with no obvious connection to the star except for the name. Similarly in Polaris, there are several people stated as named after the star - is that enough for inclusion ? -- Beardo ( talk) 02:02, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Recently TompaDompa ( talk · contribs) has gone through and removed many items. While I am sure they are well-intentioned, I am dubious about the rationale behind many of these deletions. While I will hold off on blanket reverting their removals, I am concerned that legitimate content has been removed for spurious reasons. There are several reasons for this concern:
editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references.Given that much of the material in question had gone unchallenged before TompaDompa's edits, a sudden and substantive removal of content without providing sufficient time to provide citations is a less than desirable course of action. Citation tags (either inline or at the top of the article) would be a better choice.
Consensus at the article level can determine whether particular references which meet this criteria should be included.We don't have a consensus to remove this content. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 22:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Maybe there is cause to remove much of this content, but we should get a consensus to do so first. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 22:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Consensus at the article level can determine whether particular references which meet this criteria should be included.doesn't mean that consensus can determine that something that doesn't meet these requirements should be included in spite of that, it means that consensus can determine that something that does meet these requirements should be excluded anyway. As the preceding sentence says,
Note that this sourcing requirement is a minimum threshold for inclusion of cultural references.I also think it's self-evident that MOS:POPCULT applies to stand-alone X in fiction/popular culture/whatever articles in the same way it applies to such sections. Surely you're not suggesting that we should encourage editors to fork such sections into separate articles in order to circumvent the sourcing requirements? That would to my eye be rather egregious WP:Wikilawyering.Finally, I put it to you that we already have consensus for removing these entries that lack MOS:POPCULT-compliant sourcing. That's because the current phrasing of MOS:POPCULT is itself the result of rather lengthy discussion. Not only that, there is also quite a bit of precedent inasmuch as quite a few of these "X in fiction/popular culture/whatever" lists have been brought to WP:AfD recently(-ish) with the same outcome: pure TV Tropes-style lists that enumerate every time X is featured in fiction/popular culture/whatever being rejected in favour of rewriting the articles in prose form based on proper secondary/tertiary sources. See e.g. WP:Articles for deletion/Far future in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Eco-terrorism in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Earth in science fiction (2nd nomination), WP:Articles for deletion/Space stations and habitats in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Supernovae in fiction, and WP:Articles for deletion/Neptune in fiction. TompaDompa ( talk) 01:08, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
need secondary (or tertiary) sourcesdoes not have a firm basis in Wikipedia policy. As WP:NOR states of primary sources,
primary sources may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.As long as it does not require analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis to determine that an entry is a valid and accurate example of a stellar system appearing in a fictional work, we don't need secondary or tertiary sources for the content to remain in the article; these will merely be a necessary part of improving the article.
If a planet is only mentioned in a work, or appears only briefly without a real part to play in the work, that's not substantial enough for this list.)
Cultural references about a subject (for example how it is presented in a movie, song, television show, etc.) should not be included simply because they exist. Rather, all such references should be discussed in at least one reliable secondary source which specifically links the cultural item to the subject of the article. This source should cover the subject of the article in some depth; it should not be a source about the cultural item which merely mentions the subject.(The subject of the article here is Stars and planetary systems in fiction and the cultural item is e.g. Dune) That's the part that says that we can remove entries if they only have primary sources. All entries need sourcing that meet the MOS:POPCULT requirements. The sourcing issue and the MOS:POPCULT issue are the same. TompaDompa ( talk) 10:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Collecting raw data does not produce an analysis. The raw data can be examples, that demonstrate the analysis. (There are some elephant jokes in elephant joke, for example.) But simply amassing huge piles of them doesn't make an analysis. What makes an analysis is finding the works of experts in the field who have done analyses of the raw data, and then condensing and summarizing their published analyses into the article. (Collecting raw data and then producing our own novel analyses of those data is, of course, original research that is forbidden here.)). Simply fixing these massive and widespread issues with the articles that remain, in the same way we have fixed such issues before with similar articles, seems a lot more sensible to me than dragging a bunch of articles to WP:AfD to relitigate this separately for every single article.There's a reason Earth in science fiction can be a WP:Good article (thanks mainly to User:Piotrus, whom I gave a WP:Deletion to Quality Award for that) after having been rewritten in prose form as a result of its nomination for deletion, that reason being that prose is much better than list format for covering this kind of information (also a reason the WP:AfDs rejected the lists in favour of prose articles in the first place). It could even conceivably be turned into a WP:Featured article with further improvements. There is absolutely no chance that the list version of that article could ever have become a WP:Featured list, nor could stars and planetary systems in fiction or binary stars in fiction. TompaDompa ( talk) 17:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
I didn't look for sources about the entries...") because you believe that looking for corroboration of existing unsourced material to be "
backwards."
have a vision of the what this article should look likeother than that it should reflect what WP:Reliable sources on the topic say. The content I have removed for lacking proper sourcing has not been removed on the grounds that it fails WP:Verifiability or constitutes WP:Original research. Talking about what WP:V recommends is missing the point entirely. As for WP:PRESERVE, what it says is that
as long as any of the facts or ideas added to an article would belong in the "finished" article, they should be retained if they meet the three article content retention policies: Neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), Verifiability, and No original research., and that is precisely the issue: does the content actually belong? Well, that's not for us to say but for WP:Reliable sources about the topic to say, because we're supposed to reflect what the sources say about the topic and to do so in WP:PROPORTION to how the sources treat each aspect. The piped link to WP:ONUS from "would belong" is also not an accident; demonstrating that the content actually does belong falls upon the editor(s) in favour of inclusion.It should hopefully go without saying that the proper way to assess how to give appropriate weight to different aspects of the topic stars and planetary systems in fiction in WP:PROPORTION to how WP:Reliable sources do so is to look at what sources about the overarching topic say. Trying to find sources for specific examples to justify their inclusion is not particularly helpful, because by doing so you're inherently skewing the results and not getting a representative view of the weight given to those aspects by
the body of reliable, published material on the subject. TompaDompa ( talk) 06:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
would belong in the "finished" articleif you haven't sought out such sources? You can't rely on WP:RS, WP:V, or MOS:POPCULT to determine that because the arena in which this dispute arises is not verification, but rather consensus.
TompaDompa's redirect of Binary stars in fiction brought this article to my attention. Regardless of if, or how many entries are restored to this list, the title seems to be misleading. All entries here seem to be of planetary systems around real stars, but the title seems to imply that it would include entirely fictional star systems as well. Perhaps a title like Real stars and planetary systems in fiction would be more suitable? TornadoLGS ( talk) 20:08, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject(see WP:PROPORTION). That's something that is very easy to do accidentally, especially when writing about fiction.Anyway, I'm planning to expand the article based on some sources I've been able to locate. Hopefully I'll be able to do that within the next few days. TompaDompa ( talk) 20:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)