This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Planetary science article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Recently an unregistered user made major changes to the page by deleting several sections.
These sections include: Professional Activity and the subsections of journals, major bodies, and conference, major organizations, and the section "in popular culture" which made mention of planetology in Dune. These are all fairly standard Wikipedia sections for a discipline in my opinion. For example, the guest user stated in regard to the professional activity section that: "this is also something that I have not seen in any other article about any scientific field. If relevant, these things should be described in normal prose. This list really does not illuminate the topic at all." The page Geography, among others, has similar sections. In my experience, this is common in high order academic disciplines pages.
I have undone most of these deletions. I took some time to rearrange the sections a bit, and did not add back all of the content. I placed a tag that this page needed more sources for verification in June, which I stand by. Many of these sections included important information that I believe helped to establish the discipline.
I changed the section "in popular culture" to be "in fiction." Currently, the section is small, but I believe significant to the topic overall as planetology/planetary science is not uncommon in science fiction, but does not warrant a separate page. Currently, this only mentions the Dune franchise, frequently described as the best-selling science fiction novel in history. As this page needs sources for verification, this mention is of note. If in the future this section becomes excessive, it can be split into its own page for "Planetary science in fiction."
I agree with the user that some of these sections could/should be converted to prose, and then separate list articles created. However, I don't agree with deleting them until such a change is made.
These are my thoughts, and I am posting here for discussion to avoid an edit war. The changes this user made are significant and as I disagree, I think should be discussed a bit here before such a major purge. Hopefully we can build a consensus.
GeogSage ( ⚔Chat?⚔) 20:16, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Science direct has Planetary Science as Topic (Link), which gives an overview to related books, which are quite new. It is also helpful for the discussion of the disciplinary boundaries of the field. Ai24 ( talk) 05:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Planetary science article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Recently an unregistered user made major changes to the page by deleting several sections.
These sections include: Professional Activity and the subsections of journals, major bodies, and conference, major organizations, and the section "in popular culture" which made mention of planetology in Dune. These are all fairly standard Wikipedia sections for a discipline in my opinion. For example, the guest user stated in regard to the professional activity section that: "this is also something that I have not seen in any other article about any scientific field. If relevant, these things should be described in normal prose. This list really does not illuminate the topic at all." The page Geography, among others, has similar sections. In my experience, this is common in high order academic disciplines pages.
I have undone most of these deletions. I took some time to rearrange the sections a bit, and did not add back all of the content. I placed a tag that this page needed more sources for verification in June, which I stand by. Many of these sections included important information that I believe helped to establish the discipline.
I changed the section "in popular culture" to be "in fiction." Currently, the section is small, but I believe significant to the topic overall as planetology/planetary science is not uncommon in science fiction, but does not warrant a separate page. Currently, this only mentions the Dune franchise, frequently described as the best-selling science fiction novel in history. As this page needs sources for verification, this mention is of note. If in the future this section becomes excessive, it can be split into its own page for "Planetary science in fiction."
I agree with the user that some of these sections could/should be converted to prose, and then separate list articles created. However, I don't agree with deleting them until such a change is made.
These are my thoughts, and I am posting here for discussion to avoid an edit war. The changes this user made are significant and as I disagree, I think should be discussed a bit here before such a major purge. Hopefully we can build a consensus.
GeogSage ( ⚔Chat?⚔) 20:16, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Science direct has Planetary Science as Topic (Link), which gives an overview to related books, which are quite new. It is also helpful for the discussion of the disciplinary boundaries of the field. Ai24 ( talk) 05:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC)