Talk:Artificial planet

Creation of disambiguation page
I see with this edit that you transformed this page from an article into a disambiguation page. The edit summary of this edit is "Create diambiguation page based off other page and manual" What was the other page and manual that you based this decision on? Z1720 (talk) 00:09, 28 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Other page was Car (disambiguation).
 * Manual of style page was MOS:DISAMBIGUATION.
 * I just discovered right now I made a mistake though. The AFD was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Artificial_world and not for Artificial planet.
 * You can revert my edit if you wish. बिनोद थारू (talk) 00:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * IP redirected the AfD here too looks like. Both seem like forks of each other, so redirect to here may be enough (going against AFD result) but this doesn't need to be a disambiguation page. बिनोद थारू (talk) 00:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I am going to revert your edit since this is to appear as a DYK soon. I think, from what I see in the AfD discussion, that the results are saying that Artificial world should be disambiguated, not this page. Z1720 (talk) 00:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes I will copy there बिनोद थारू (talk) 00:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Done बिनोद थारू (talk) 00:42, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Riverworld
It doesn't seem to me that Riverworld is an artificial planet. It's a flat surface where, it seems, people go after they die. There is nothing in Farmer's books suggesting that Riverworld has an orbit or other planetary characteristics. It's more like the layout of a board game. Since the inclusion of Riverworld in the article is probably based on original research or opinion, I suggest that it can be removed with advantage. Wastrel Way (talk) 14:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Eric

Removing and replacing the AI-generated image
The AI-generated image is neither an illustration depicting a fictional or theoretical artificial planet, nor a diagram depicting how a real-life artificial planet might be constructed. It is simply the work of an algorithm amalgamating the work of human artists to create what appears to be a difficult-to-parse image of a bundle of cables floating in an ocean.

The point of having pictures in an encyclopedia entry is to convey information visually, not just to make the article "look good". This image was not created by a person with an understanding of the topic because it was not created by a person at all. Thus, it cannot possibly convey information.

This image is all aesthetic, no substance. It would be suited for a tech demo, a personal desktop background, or an NFT, but it does not belong in what is ostensibly supposed to be an educational context. I would ask that we remove it and replace it with a more suitable image. 2601:47:4880:4B50:1CBF:1E55:6456:A559 (talk) 04:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Nope. See WP:IMGCONTENT. "The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article." Artist impression of what an artificial planet is - and artists include people using AI to generate images - is perfectly fine. Replacing this with a fair use image that is not legally allowed here anyway, effectively removing the image, is not helpful for the readers. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This image was not created by a person with an understanding of the topic because it was not created by a person at all. Thus, it cannot possibly convey information. I do not really understand what this sentence is supposed to mean; regardless, what Piotrus says is correct. jp×g🗯️ 04:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed. To add to this further, AI is a tool. The image was generated by a human being (artist) using prompts. We might as well ban all images where the artist uses tablets, brushes, or perhaps is not painting using their fingers and bodily fluids :P Now, more seriously, many AI images are bad art, but so what? If the art is really bad - just like a blurry low res or confusing photo - we won't add it here. But the image in questions seems quite serviceable. No prejudice to it being removed one day when we have better images to chose from, either from more traditional human artists or from better AI tools. Until then, removing it seems to me a form of anti-AI luddism. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)