Talk:Fictional planets of the Solar System

Revert of cleanup
, this is just plain obstruction. List versus prose format is a red herring here, and you know it—the issue with the version you reverted to is the lack of proper sourcing, which the article has been correctly tagged as suffering from for years. You presumably know that the list format encourages this kind of content that lacks proper sourcing, and you certainly know that rewriting articles of this kind to prose format with proper sourcing and analysis of the overarching topic, rather than plain TV Tropes-style lists, has been very effective in improving the quality of the articles and resulted in several WP:Good articles and even WP:Featured articles. If you want TV Tropes-style lists of examples with editorial WP:ANALYSIS of the fiction itself, the place you want to go to is TV Tropes, not Wikipedia. The time is well past acting like Wikipedia's WP:Core content policies do not apply to fiction-related content. TompaDompa (talk) 12:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Some like lists, others like full-prose analysis. The deserved good and featured articles are good and featured as examples of those who like prose and not lists. They are useful as academic studies of the topics. For finding particular examples, and quickly reading though those examples, not so much. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That's beside the point, and you know it. I want you to explain why you thought it appropriate to remove properly-sourced material and replace it with material that lacks proper sourcing. TompaDompa (talk) 13:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Then source the material from the links (all you have to do is click on the link and you have your sourcing). The point I'm making is that you've taken many nice list articles, made them into academic articles (featured, which I agree with, for academic purposes), and didn't also leave a list page for those who like the topic presented in that way. That's the point. We've had this discussion before and you keep on prosing and featuring. And when I want to add something appropriate, such as at the Sun in fiction talk page, I have to ask you if it's already on the page somewhere (in that instance a perfectly fine example, Ring, where half the notable book is a work of Sun in fiction, but wasn't allowed for some reason due to sourcing you didn't like). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Then you know what, since it seems you are about to prose this into a feature (more power to ya) I'll revert and let you do your thing which you are very good at, but will ask that this page, and other pages which you have list-to-prosed also provide a fork into a list article with the material as presented here before the addition, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Come on, now. You (should) know that verification is not the only sourcing requirement there is. There are also things like due weight—we don't mention things about topics that sources on that topic deem irrelevant. We don't permit articles to be based on primary sources, even if those primary sources verify every single thing the article states. Plot-only descriptions of works of fiction are expressly forbidden (see WP:NOTPLOT). And so on. If you revisit the Sun in fiction example, you'll find that I did not simply "not like" the sourcing, I explained that based on the overall literature on the overarching topic it is a very WP:MINORASPECT whose inclusion would be difficult to justify.What you are describing is a TV Tropes page. Now I like TV Tropes, but they do things completely differently than we do here at Wikipedia. TV Tropes does not require sources, TV Tropes encourages original thought, TV Tropes does not care about notability (the mantra there is "There Is no Such Thing as Notability"), and so on. Trying to apply a TV Tropes approach to Wikipedia content is a "square peg, round hole" type of situation. I would personally be in favour of linking to TV Tropes in the "External links" section in much the same way we do with IMDb links (and I would also be in favour of linking to Wikia/Fandom in this way), but I suppose a broader consensus would be needed to implement that.Maybe it's possible to write list articles on these kinds of topics in the format you prefer while also abiding by Wikipedia's overall WP:Policies and guidelines, but nobody has yet demonstrated this to be the case. I'm very skeptical myself—I try to imagine what a WP:Featured list of that kind would look like, and I keep running into a few problems, mainly where to put the threshold for inclusion and what/how much information to present about each entry. Both of those things need to reflect the sources on the topic and maintain a proper balance of WP:ASPECTS. I think it's pretty clear that in most cases we cannot present an exhaustive set of X in fiction/popular culture/whatever, so we need to establish some sort of inclusion (and perhaps also exclusion) criteria that are unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources per WP:LISTCRITERIA. Likewise, each entry would need to provide sufficient context to explain how and why it is an example of X in fiction/popular culture/whatever that should appear on the list without being disproportionate either in the context of that particular entry or compared to other entries. All the while we need to avoid performing any editorial WP:ANALYSIS or interpretation of the works themselves. This would not, to put it mildly, be trivial, and it puts extremely high requirements on the sources. Such sources, I daresay, simply do not exist for these topics (or at least the majority of them). If we fundamentally cannot even in principle bring an article up to WP:Featured content standards, then we should not have such an article in the first place (which is not to say that the topic should not be covered on Wikipedia in some other form on some other article). TompaDompa (talk) 21:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

image at bottom doesn't work on mobile
The image of the planets where if you click it leads to pages about them doesn't work on mobile. TheT.N.T.BOOM! (talk) 11:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hm. It works for me. Might depend on the device and/or browser? TompaDompa (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Non-editable article
Unfortunately, this page appears to be a particular user's de-facto private fiefdom; anyone else's edits will be summarily deleted, on a variety of pretexts, 100% of the time. (It would be useful if there were some way to tag this sort of situation, as it is represents a waste of other users' time. To be sure, the revision history here speaks for itself, but some kind of more prominent "YOU NEEDN'T BOTHER" tag might be convenient?)

Senix (talk) 01:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If you think there are WP:OWNERSHIP issues, the venue to bring that up is WP:ANI. Otherwise, it is generally a good idea when you get reverted and disagree with the reason to take it to the talk page to discuss the substance of your edits and explain why you think they were an improvement. That's one of the ways consensus is built on Wikipedia. TompaDompa (talk) 03:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I suppose it was naive to think WP was somehow immune to enshittification, though it it is fascinating to see the unique form the phenomenon takes on in the context of a noncommercial project. But anyway, friendly warning to anyone contemplating an edit: don't waste your time. The "NO TRESPASSING" sign could not be more clearly posted. Senix (talk) 05:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)