Talk:Planetary science

Recent removal of sections by unregistered user.
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)


 * "Guest user"? How incredibly disrespectful. That you start with an ad hominem attack tells us all we need to know here; you're reverting because you don't like IP editors. And you continue with rank dishonesty; there is no section like "professional activity" in Geography. And the notion that a section containing only a mention of Dune could somehow show that planetary science has had a broad impact on popular culture is preposterous. I have restored my changes. 93.159.183.71 (talk) 06:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "IP users, guest users or unregistered users are users who edit Wikipedia without registering for an account. " -IP users
 * Guest user, is a word used to describe Wikipedia editors who are not using an account, it is not an ad hominem attack. I'm reverting because I don't agree with your edits. It has absolutely nothing to do with my opinion on IP editors, I can't tag your account in an edit so I used the jargon from Wikipedia's page on IP users to refer to you instead.
 * In the geography page, there similar sections containing lists of geographers, publications, and institutions. I agreed that some of these sections could be trimmed so did not fully revert your edits to this page. I thought completely eliminating them was excessive, but did consolidate them a bit.
 * Planetary science/planetology is something that appears in fiction. Dune is an example, but it is probably not the only example. The section could be expanded in the future, or even split into another page, but for now, the short nod to planetology appearing prominently in one of the biggest science fiction franchises ever is noteworthy.
 * My dispute with your edits has everything to do with my disagreement with the edits themselves. For example, I am the one who wrote the "in popular culture" section, so obviously I would dispute its complete elimination. I moved the discussion to the talk page here to discuss this and try and build a consensus with other users. You are engaging in Edit warring with other users at this point on this issue. This was what I was trying to avoid by starting the discussion on this talk page.  GeogSage  ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 09:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

more sources
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)