User talk:TompaDompa/Archive 5

Your GA nomination of George Griffith
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article George Griffith you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:22, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

DYK for A Plunge into Space
RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Imagining Mars: A Literary History
The article Imagining Mars: A Literary History you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Imagining Mars: A Literary History for comments about the article, and Talk:Imagining Mars: A Literary History/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Frzzl -- Frzzl (talk) 10:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of George Griffith
The article George Griffith you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:George Griffith for comments about the article, and Talk:George Griffith/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Congratulations to another quality article, and another FA before, and thank you today for Mars in fiction, "about how the planet Mars has been depicted in fiction, a topic that has been the subject of a fairly extensive body of literature including a few full-length books. I previously overhauled the article completely starting in March 2022 and brought it to WP:Good article status by December. Since then, it has been at WP:Peer review for a few months. I just closed that peer review after receiving a decent amount of feedback and being encouraged to move on here to FAC. This is my first time nominating an article here at FAC." Enjoy your first TFA! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

TFA for Venus in fiction
Does a TFA set for October 17 work for you? - Dank (push to talk) 03:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, I suppose. Make sure to also check with my co-nominator . TompaDompa (talk) 14:18, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oops, missed the co-nom., does this date work for you? - Dank (push to talk) 14:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Errrr, why wouldn't it? Am I required to do anything on that date? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Since this was recently promoted at FAC, I'm not expecting any problems. You can watchlist WP:ERRORS on that day if you want to. - Dank (push to talk) 02:49, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Science-Fiction: The Gernsback Years
Hello! Your submission of Science-Fiction: The Gernsback Years at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Viriditas (talk) 22:57, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

DYK for George Griffith
Vaticidalprophet 00:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Imagining Mars: A Literary History
—Kusma (talk) 12:02, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Science-Fiction: The Gernsback Years
 Schwede 66  00:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Triple Crown
I do admire the niche of the two articles in your nomination. They're really fascinating. Damien Linnane (talk) 12:32, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Władysław Umiński
You may enjoy reviewing this for DYK. Or just reading. Cheers, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

TFA
Thank you today for Venus in fiction, introduced: "Following the successful nomination for Mars in fiction, I bring you our other planetary neighbour's depiction in fiction. Compared to Mars, Venus has made fewer and less influential appearances in fiction, resulting in a comparatively sparse secondary literature which is reflected in a significantly shorter article here on Wikipedia. This is not to say that Venus's history in fiction is less interesting—while the depiction of Mars was heavily influenced by observations of its surface that later turned out to be mistaken, the depiction of Venus was equally influenced by the fact that its surface could not be observed at all through the planet's thick cloud layer. Thus, while science fiction writers thought they had a pretty good understanding of the conditions on the surface of Mars, the Venusian surface was a complete mystery to them, opening the door for all kinds of imaginative speculation."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Admin noticeboard incident
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Unawoken (talk) 18:16, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * For future reference, this refers to WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1141. TompaDompa (talk) 12:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

BBC article
Thanks for all the work you've been doing on SF related articles. This recent BBC article, "The weird aliens of early science fiction" may be of interest to you. —Bruce1eetalk 12:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Sun in fiction
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 21 December 2023. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Today's featured article/December 2023, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/December 2023. Please keep an eye on that page, as comments regarding the draft blurb may be left there by user:dying, who assists the coordinators by making suggestions on the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors from two days before the article appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 16:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * To coincide with the solstice? I have to admit, that's kind of clever. TompaDompa (talk) 16:57, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep, a two day marking of the solstice, with Antarctica on the 22nd. Wehwalt (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Dyson sphere
Hello, re the Dyson sphere in the book The Pandora Star - the book is physically in front of me. I am quoting from it and REFERENCING it. WHAT MORE CAN I DO? WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT ME TO DO? But if you don't want to improve Wiki and it makes you feel important to stop people from doing it, fine. It just reinforces yet again my firm impression that Wiki editors are a bunch of smug, self-important, ignorant clowns. 92.21.84.208 (talk) 16:05, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No need to yell. For the purposes of including the appearance of the Dyson sphere in the book Pandora's Star over at Dyson sphere, the book itself is a WP:Primary source. That's not sufficient sourcing in cases like this. Articles on Wikipedia are supposed to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject per our policy WP:PROPORTION. The subject here is Dyson spheres, or more specifically fictional Dyson spheres. That is to say, the "Fictional accounts" section of the Dyson sphere article is supposed to reflect the relative weight placed upon different fictional Dyson spheres by sources specifically covering the topic of fictional Dyson spheres. One such source is the "Dyson Sphere" entry in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction. See also MOS:POPCULT for sourcing requirements when it comes specifically to appearances in popular culture. TompaDompa (talk) 17:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Question
I noticed that you described this sentence as MOS:PUFFERY: "Frozen became a popular culture phenomenon with its songs, characters, storytelling elements, and appeal to a general audience." Can you point out which words are puffery? Because none of them are. ภץאคгöร 06:55, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * phenomenon, in this context. TompaDompa (talk) 10:51, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Then you clearly didn't read the sources that directly state that term and pages like Cultural phenomenon. I also would like to mention that phenomenon ≠ phenomenal. ภץאคгöร 12:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * We can agree to disagree about this specific instance (though I would that my initial comment included the subsequent three words "The immense popularity" in the quote). The article as a whole has a rather pronounced issue with tone that will need to be remedied. TompaDompa (talk) 02:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Comets in fiction
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Comets in fiction you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Geethree -- Geethree (talk) 22:23, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Comets in fiction
The article Comets in fiction you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Comets in fiction for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Geethree -- Geethree (talk) 03:21, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

GAR
Was wondering if you have any further complaints....... Wingwatchers (talk) 23:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I hope I am not talking to myself. Since you have no further complaints based on your lack of response, I am inclined to close the GAR myself by tomorrow. Wingwatchers (talk) 23:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Patience. My time is divided between different things, on Wikipedia and off, and this is but one of them. I have replied at the GAR. I would note that closing the discussion yourself would be terribly out of process. TompaDompa (talk) 23:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I have replied... Wingwatchers (talk) 00:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * An interesting solution would be for me to rewrite the Box Office section from scratch using professional analyses such as Reuters and Deadline Hollywood and avoid using Mojo. After that can we all agree to resolve our differences? Wingwatchers (talk) 01:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Just note that I will stop using Mojo but not the unrelated Boxoffice Pro. Wingwatchers (talk) 01:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Dec 23
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly., I left them ±one I need to leave you one as well. Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The List of largest empires thing? Respectfully, I disengaged from that 16 hours ago (you'll note I didn't revert this edit but waited for someone else to do so) and told the newcomer to join the talk page as per WP:BRD. You also (presumably accidentally) restored the wrong revision (this is not the last stable version, this is). TompaDompa (talk) 13:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * As I said, this was more a case of I warned them as well, so this avoided them saying I did not warn you. By the way, this was the last version I could revert to that did not fail, due to DB errors. Slatersteven (talk) 13:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

John Wick
@TompaDompa, you might want to take a look at this. Just so you know, DWB claims they fixed the points you brought up in the last nomination here. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1(The Garage) 16:09, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Aliens in fiction
Hello. Some months ago you wrote Mars in fiction, and managed to get it to featured article. I'm working with Extraterrestrial life, it currently lacks an "Extraterrestrials in fiction" section, and the Extraterrestrials in fiction article is little more than a stub right now. Ideally, it should be an article with a style similar to Mars in fiction, and Extraterrestrial life having a summary of it. But of course, aliens in fiction come in all shapes and sizes. From War of the Worlds to Star Trek, from Alf to Thanos, there are as many types of fictional aliens as ways to use Mars, and like there, I may know individual works of fiction but I would need some sources to provide an overview of the whole topic and to separe the wheat from the chaff (which is not citing as examples the works I may happen to like). Can you suggest me some books or sources I may use to work on those articles? Cambalachero (talk) 14:42, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Certainly, I would be happy to. My go-to sources for science fiction topics are The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction ("Aliens" entry), Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia (entry), The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy ("Aliens in Space" entry, "Aliens on Earth" entry), and Science Fiction Literature through History: An Encyclopedia ("Aliens" entry). A more extensive list of science fiction sources in general can be found at WP:WikiProject Science Fiction/References. For this particular topic, I would also expect the relevant chapter of Gary Westfahl's The Stuff of Science Fiction: Hardware, Settings, Characters to be useful. TompaDompa (talk) 16:22, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I have added the above-mentioned sources to Extraterrestrials in fiction (apart from one that was already cited in the article). TompaDompa (talk) 09:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll be working with it. Cambalachero (talk) 14:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Artificial planet
I've started this article, seems borderline notable based on sciency sources. Anything comes to mind to add to the popculture/fiction section? Based on our good sources, of course, because I am sure both of us can think of specific examples to add (ex. Matter (novel)).

Btw, do you think sun scoop can be rescued? Seems too niche... I also stumbled upon another aricle that may need scrutiny: Shellworld. Sigh. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Invitation

 * Hello, we need experienced volunteers.
 * New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
 * Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines ; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
 * Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, it basically boils down to checking CSD, notability, and title). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us.
 * If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions. You can apply for the user-right HERE.
 * If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message at the reviewer's discussion board.
 * Cheers, and hope to see you around.

Sent by NPP Coordination using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

So... what's next?
Just saw the TFA and saw that you are on the "Astronomical objects in fiction" saga, so what's next? Mercury in fiction? Earth in fiction? The Moon in fiction? Jupiter in fiction? Saturn in fiction? Uranus in fiction? Neptune in fiction? Pluto in fiction? Comets in fiction? Asteroids in fiction? The list could go on and on. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1<b style="color:#0a0a0a;">(The Garage)</b> 13:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * My plan is to work on Asteroids in fiction next and get it ready for WP:Good article nomination. After that I'll probably tackle Fictional planets of the Solar System and try to create a Solar System in fiction WP:Good topic. In the long term I intend to bring as many of the articles as I can to WP:Featured article status, most likely starting with Moon in science fiction. TompaDompa (talk) 14:31, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Fictional planets of the Solar System is presently in a good readable easily searchable list, so please choose another name or move that page to another appropriate name, thanks. Your articles are extremely good, but not easily searchable for topics related to the titles. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:36, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Fictional planets of the Solar System is a TV Tropes-style list with the level of sourcing (i.e. atrocious) that comes with that territory. It needs to be fixed one way or another to abide by Wikipedia's WP:Policies and guidelines, including those on sourcing and the relative weight given to different aspects of a topic. TompaDompa (talk) 14:41, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with tropes lists (some editors like them, other editors should let them like them). The sourcing, like in other articles you've addressed, is within the linked items if they have Wikipedia pages (those without pages should be removed). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sure I don't need to explain e.g. WP:PROPORTION again (the most important things about writing articles of this kind are outlined in the essay WP:CARGO) . Trope lists are indeed fine—on TV Tropes. Wikipedia is WP:NOTTVTROPES. TompaDompa (talk) 14:56, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That essay is an opinion piece, nothing to do with policy. Anyway, let's not go into this now, you've got a good feature up (as to that, why you removed the Time travel section confused me as Star Trek prominently used the Sun in two well-known television episodes and in two films. Was the section present during the feature review? Not to use those mentions in an article 'Sun in fiction' seems a loss to the page and collective material relating to the topic). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hahahaha, I think I started the Battle of Stalingrad again here... <b style="color:#ff6600;">The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1</b><b style="color:#0a0a0a;">(The Garage)</b> 15:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That section was not present during the WP:FAC, no. The reason I removed it was, in short, because sources on the overarching topic Sun in fiction do not cover that aspect (making it a WP:MINORASPECT violation). TompaDompa (talk) 15:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Well, it's your page. But it now seems incomplete, as the Star Trek use of the Sun is a very prominent usage known by millions of viewers and readers. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Today's feature article
Congratulations on today's feature. Sun in fiction is another masterpiece, nice work. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you today for the article, introduced: "After my previous nominations for Mars in fiction and Venus in fiction, we move on to the Sun, which has had rather a different history of being depicted in fiction. Somewhat surprisingly, it was portrayed as a physical location—and inhabited—as far back as classical antiquity. In more recent times, fictional depictions have instead mostly focused on its importance for life on Earth, though it is still occasionally visited or even inhabited."! - I wish you a good festive season and a peaceful New Year! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Today, I have a special story to tell, of the works of a musician born 300 years ago. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Follow up on Oakland GA progress
Hi TompaDompa, I saw your notes for improvement on the Oakland temple page, and I’ve spent time citing all the information you flagged on the page. Do you have more specific notes on the ways that the page can improve on the POV, and CLEANUP tags? It was also mentioned that clarification is needed, will you point out specific spots you see that need clarification? Thanks for your work to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia! Itsetsyoufree32 (talk) 18:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The main issue I identified when I reviewed the article was sourcing. I didn't take a particularly close look at other aspects since the sourcing issues were so serious. I'm afraid I don't have any more specific feedback to offer. TompaDompa (talk) 20:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

John Wick
Hi Tompa, I'm a bit confused, I can see Corvette has already messaged you about it. Your opposition was the core driver for the last nominations failure, and I've since taken the time to apply your requests, re:copyediting, minus removing the well sourced action movie commentary which was supported by FrB.TG. I was cordial throughout the last review with you and took on all of your requests (and appreciated the time you gave toward it) even over points we disagreed on. Even so, Corvette's message and the pings were ignored. If you did not have the time to give the changes a quick check I can understand that but a response saying so would have been appreciated. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I suppose I do owe you an explanation. I've been waiting for others to review the nomination first before I take a look again, both because I want fresh perspectives to be added before I weigh in on the nomination (both because I want to see what others think to consider their perspectives before I evaluate the article anew and because I don't want to unduly influence other reviewers by dominating the discussion, so to speak) and because I am hesitant to commit the time it would take to review the article from scratch again before I know that the nomination will gain enough traction from others. I want to avoid being the gatekeeper for this article making it to WP:Featured article status and thought it more appropriate to let others have their say first (though I did intend to review the new nomination eventually). I could (and perhaps should) have explained this earlier, but I expected reviews from other editors to be forthcoming and then it slipped my mind. With the benefit of hindsight, I recognize that it is a definite possibility that other editors were similarly waiting for me to give my updated thoughts on the article before they would give theirs—resulting in a catch-22 of sorts. TompaDompa (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That makes sense, thank you for explaining, it probably didn't help that I opened the nomination just before Christmas so engagement was probably a lot lower than usual anyway. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Comets in fiction
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Comets in fiction you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Cessaune -- Cessaune (talk) 05:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

German empire wrong size
Hello TD! Could you take a look at the article of German colonial empire? the article indicates that it was 31 million km2, which is obviously wrong. Idk if it was an IP who added that number or if I am the one making a mistake here haha. I looked at the source and can't find anything backing up those 31 million km2, which would make it the 2nd largest in history. Just saw that you are very active in this field, so maybe you can correct it, if you have the time. Speun (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Looks like somebody (presumably accidentally) entered a population figure into the area unit conversion template. TompaDompa (talk) 18:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, it seems like it was an honest mistake from that user. Thank you for the quick response and for fixing it! :) Speun (talk) 11:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

List of largest empires
I was think wheter it would make sense to merge the various Chinese empires/dynasties into one "Chinese empire"/Imperial China in that page? Does the source separate the various dynasties? Or maybe it's a bad solution Idk.Barjimoa (talk) 17:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's a good idea. Sources don't generally consider Han dynasty China and the Qing dynasty China to be the same state, for instance. Similarly, sources don't generally consider the Old Kingdom of Egypt, Ptolemaic Egypt, and present-day Egypt to be the same state. TompaDompa (talk) 18:25, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you
A time agnostic greeting!

I just wanted to give a proper thank you (and a kitten) for your thorough GA review of Lord of War, even though it was unsuccessful. As I'm sure you could tell, it was my first real stab at content editing, and your comments have certainly given me a lot to think about and chew on! Based on the review it's very clear that midway through you could have simply stopped, politely said the article is clearly not close to the criteria, and closed it there. Instead you took the time to give me constructive feedback for every section, even comments that when reading them I'm quite embarrassed to have needed (e.g using a BLP subject in handcuffs as a major image when other alternatives exist or just failing to source the budget entirely). I'm slightly worried that sourcing outside of reviews is sparse enough to make building out the other sections quite difficult, but regardless of whether I re-nominate Lord of War, the feedback will certainly help me in future content editing.

Also, slightly belated but I happened to see it on your talk page, congratulations on George Griffith getting to FA! Cheers! — Sirdog (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

George Griffith
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 19 March 2024. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Today's featured article/March 2024, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/March 2024. Please keep an eye on that page, as comments regarding the draft blurb may be left there by user:dying, who assists the coordinators by making suggestions on the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors from two days before the article appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Comets in fiction
The article Comets in fiction you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Comets in fiction for comments about the article, and Talk:Comets in fiction/GA2 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Cessaune -- Cessaune (talk) 21:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

GA review of Gladiator (2000 film)
Hi, I'm following up on a GA Review for Gladiator (2000 film), which you reviewed. This is my first time nominating an article, so I'm not 100% sure how the process works. Can I ask you some questions about the review? Thank you. Wafflewombat (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure. TompaDompa (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Great. On the Talk page I re-posted the bulk of your review and added comments and questions, and indicated which of your suggested edits I made. If you're willing to read that post, that would be great, but I will also ask you the questions here.
 * 1.Does the over-reliance on verbatim quotes in the Production section constitute a violation of a particular guideline?
 * 2. You said "quantitative descriptions are way less enlightening than qualitative ones" for the awards section. Is that your opinion, or is it a broad enough attitude/norm on Wikipedia that we definitely need to change it?
 * 3. For the line "The Guardian ranked Gladiator as the 94th best film of the 21st century," your response was "so what?" Are you stating your opinion that this information is not important? Seems subjective, and I'm wondering if it would be best practice to change it merely due to your thoughts on it. Can you weigh in?
 * 4. Could you clarify why the article failed the criteria for "clear, concise" prose and spelling/grammar?
 * 5. Which parts were original research, and which parts went into unnecessary detail? It failed both those areas.
 * 6. You said, "The article is currently being actively, and rather heavily, edited. It's not an WP:Edit war, but it's a bit of a stretch to call it stable right now." I spent a few weeks editing this page, and once I felt like I had done all I could do, I submitted it for GA review. Should I have waited a certain amount of time between finishing my major edits and submitting?
 * If this is a lot of questions to answer, I apologize. No rush, either.
 * Thanks! Wafflewombat (talk) 23:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll reply at the article talk page. That way, it will be easier to find for anyone working on or reviewing the article in the future. TompaDompa (talk) 10:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * And I'll reply here, since my reply doesn't need to be viewed by everyone. Just wanted to say thanks for the review and all your feedback! Your answers to my questions definitely clarified some things. Wafflewombat (talk) 23:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Question
When it comes to all your pages related to space entities in science fiction (btw they're really really great pages, very interesting to read, great job!), I do have one question. Why are they all called "[blank] in science fiction" except the sun page, which is merely called "Sun in fiction"? Is there any reason for that? The contents of that page, much like the others, seem to exclusively deal in science fiction. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Actually, it appears I have got this reversed. Most of these seem to be "in fiction" first, except for the moon and earth. Sorry for getting this confused. I still think it's odd that the sun page is called "fiction" when it appears to only focus on "science fiction", when due to humanity's long history with the sun I think that's a marginally separate topic, unlike the planets which really are only covered in the context of "science fiction". Mostly I'm confused about the title discrepancy. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The Sun in fiction article does actually cover other genres than science fiction to some extent (see e.g. the "Eclipses" section), but it does indeed mainly focus on science fiction. This is a result of the sources doing likewise, probably because the Sun is in most stories basically just there and there is not much to say about it (as both Richard Bleiler in The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy and John Clute in The Encyclopedia of Fantasy allude to). The "in fiction" construction is chosen both because of brevity and to not limit the scope needlessly. The two exceptions—Earth in science fiction and Moon in science fiction, as you correctly identified—are special cases. Almost all fiction takes place on Earth of course, so "Earth in fiction" would be a rather odd choice of title for the topic of Earth as an astronomical object in fiction, which is more-or-less what the article is about (not quite, but I can't think of a better way of describing it right at this moment). For the Moon, the title was chosen mainly to clarify that it's about the Moon as a setting rather than e.g. an object in the sky (as it might be in werewolf stories). A 2022 discussion on a related but somewhat broader topic can be read at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Culture/Archive 1. TompaDompa (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. That makes enough sense, thanks. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Quick question
Hi, I just wanted to get your thoughts on something, since you're a more experienced editor than I am (in case you don't remember, I nominated the Gladiator page for GA review recently, and you reviewed it). I got into a disagreement with another editor about a passage on the page for The Empire Strikes Back. I don't think the meaning of the passage is clear, but the other editor does. Here is the passage:

"Anthony Daniels was reluctant to return as C-3PO because he had received little acknowledgment for his previous performance, as the filmmakers played down his involvement to portray the droid as a real being."

Does it make sense to you?

Thanks! Wafflewombat (talk) 02:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Fairly clear, yes:
 * The filmmakers wanted audiences to think of C-3PO as a real droid, not an actor in a costume.
 * Thus, they de-emphasized Daniels' role as an actor.
 * Thus, Daniels did not get much recognition for the part.
 * Thus, Daniels was less inclined to reprise the role.
 * It might be able to improve the phrasing somewhat, but I don't think it's an outright problem. TompaDompa (talk) 08:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. The phrase "real being" to me signifies a flesh-and-blood person. If it said "real droid" or "real robot," then I would have no problem with it. But if it's fairly clear to you, then I won't worry about it. Wafflewombat (talk) 09:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Alright, I understand where you're coming from. "Real robot" could be an improvement here. You might suggest it on the talk page (or be WP:BOLD). TompaDompa (talk) 09:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Another question for you! When I first created my account, there was a page that showed me how many people had visited pages I had edited. I can't find that page now. Can you direct me to it? Wafflewombat (talk) 11:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't know what page that might be. You can see what pages you have edited and a bunch of different statistics at WP:XTools (your personal statistics: https://xtools.wmcloud.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/Wafflewombat). At XTools you can also see various statistics about specific pages (the statistics for Gladiator (2000 film): https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Gladiator%20%282000%20film%29). Pageview statistics can be found at pageviews (pageviews for Gladiator (2000 film): https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-20&pages=Gladiator%20%282000%20film%29). I hope this helps at least somewhat. TompaDompa (talk) 15:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the links! It's helpful to know all those statistics are available. I discovered that what I was looking for was the "Newcomer Home Page" which I had disabled in my account settings. Not sure why it's only for newcomers, though. It's pretty cool: It tells me that since I first started editing the Gladiator page, it has been viewed 295,596 times. Wafflewombat (talk) 06:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Linking to YouTube
Hello! I'm working on the Star Wars page, and there is a documentary that is cited about 40 times. It was made for a Star Wars DVD box set, and it's also available on YouTube. I understand that linking to YouTube is generally not acceptable, but I'm wondering if there's a way to mention somewhere on the page (or Talk page) that editors can watch this documentary without having to track down a DVD. Any thoughts? Wafflewombat (talk) 11:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There are a few different things to take into consideration here. First off, there is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube, see WP:YOUTUBE. The reason it is usually not permitted is that YouTube videos are typically WP:Self-published sources and thus not usable as sources, see WP:RSPYOUTUBE. Sources that are otherwise WP:RELIABLE are still reliable if they are on YouTube. However, it is very common for reliable sources of that kind to be posted to YouTube in violation of copyright, and those videos should not be linked from Wikipedia, see WP:COPYLINK. There is a bit more information about all of this in general over at WP:VIDEOLINK.This is all to say that if the documentary is itself reliable, and the YouTube upload is not a copyright infringment, linking it is acceptable. If that is indeed the case, you could perhaps link it in the citation template using the via parameter. If you are unsure about whether the upload is okay from a copyright standpoint, the people at WP:Media copyright questions may be able to help (though I'm honestly not sure if that's the correct venue – they should be able to point you to the right place if it is not). TompaDompa (talk) 12:58, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the detailed reply! Very helpful. Wafflewombat (talk) 16:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Tompa, another question for you. Is there a page or forum dedicated to editing film articles, where I can go to ask questions? I can keep coming to you, if you don't mind, but you're just one person and may not always have the answer, so I was wondering if there is another venue. I've asked some questions at the Teahouse, but haven't always received helpful answers, partly because the people who responded aren't experts on film articles. Also, what is going on with the font in this post? Wafflewombat (talk) 03:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There is indeed: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film (WT:FILM). The weird font happens if the first character on a new line is a space (I've removed it for you). TompaDompa (talk) 07:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks a bunch! Wafflewombat (talk) 07:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Adminship
Have you ever considered it? Your grasp of our policies, for example in the realm of deletion (among others) is very good. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:56, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that's very kind. To answer your question: not really. The ways I contribute to Wikipedia aren't really things where the admin tools would be useful to me (where they might have been useful to me in my everyday editing, I would in most cases be WP:INVOLVED making the point moot anyway). Maybe someday, if people want me to, but for now I'm content just working on content (no pun intended). TompaDompa (talk) 17:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

TFA
Thank you today for George Griffith, introduced: "George Griffith inhabits a fascinating position in the history of science fiction. He got a couple of years' head start on H. G. Wells, and was briefly the leading sci-fi author in Britain. Since then, however, he has descended into obscurity so completely that the article was nominated for deletion back in May. I spent some time tracking down sources in order to bring the article to WP:Good article status, which it reached in August."! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I uploaded vacation pics (from back home), at least the first day, - and remember Aribert Reimann. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Asteroids in fiction
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Asteroids in fiction you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ghosts of Europa -- Ghosts of Europa (talk) 05:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Dacia Under Burebista map
I hope this message finds you well. I have recently created a detailed map depicting the Dacian Kingdom under Burebista's reign. The map includes essential features such as Burebista's campaigns, the capital of the Dacian Kingdom, neighboring territories, as well as prominent cities and rivers within the kingdom.

I believe this map could be valuable for those interested in ancient history and the geography of the region. Before proceeding with uploading the map, I wanted to seek your permission to ensure that there are no copyright issues or other concerns.

If you could kindly review the map through the following link https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Dacian_kingdom_under_Burebista.png, I would greatly appreciate it. Your feedback and approval would be invaluable.

Thank you for considering my request. I look forward to hearing from you soon. Portasa Cristian (talk) 21:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I gather that you asked me because I recently edited the article Dacia. Unfortunately, this is not really my area of expertise. For questions about historical accuracy, I would try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History. For questions about copyright, I would suggest Media copyright questions (though in this particular case, I don't think there should be any such problems with a map you have made yourself). I hope this helps. TompaDompa (talk) 21:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Comets in fiction
—Ganesha811 (talk) 00:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

SF
Hallo, and thanks a lot for replying. Maybe you don't Know, but Italy (I am Italian) has been the first country to get aquainted with the great American SF of the golden years. This happened because an Italian publisher, Mondadori, started to publish SF in the early 50s founding a new magazine named "Urania" (After the name of the muse of astronomy). After Urania other two magazines appeared in the early 60s, "Galassia" and "Cosmo". My father was an engineer and an astrophile, and bought each issue of the three magazines until the end of the 60s. I started to read them when I still was in the primary school, and later I inherited the whole collection (which is nowadays very valuable, also because the covers of Urania have been drawn by a famous illustrator, Karel Thole). That's why I am so enthusiastic about SF and your article. The only problem would be to find the works that you cited and that I did not read. ;-) Cheers and thanks again, Alex2006 (talk) 16:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Asteroids in fiction
The article Asteroids in fiction you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Asteroids in fiction for comments about the article, and Talk:Asteroids in fiction/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ghosts of Europa -- Ghosts of Europa (talk) 05:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Clarification Regarding Edit Removal on Dacia Area
Dear Tompadompa,

I hope this message finds you well. I recently noticed that you removed the edit made by John Dumi regarding the area of Dacia. I wanted to bring to your attention that John Dumi sourced the maps of the Dacian kingdom under Burebista to calculate the overall area, resulting in an approximate 600,000 km². However, since the exact borders of the kingdom are not available, this figure is an estimation.

I'm reaching out to inquire if I have your permission to re-upload the area information, following the steps you outlined. I understand that you likely have more experience on the platform, and I value your guidance in this matter.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Portasa Cristian (talk) 02:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Calculating the area based on a map is WP:Original research, even if based on an authoritative map. On Wikipedia, we need sources to estimate the area for us. TompaDompa (talk) 02:19, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No original research
 * Basic math isn't original research, and should not be treated as such Redacted II (talk) 23:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:Routine calculations are not original research (provided there is consensus among editors that the results of the calculations are correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources), but calculating an area from a map is not a routine calculation (especially not in the context of historical polities). TompaDompa (talk) 23:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Asteroids in fiction
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

An overview "in fiction" section in Solar System
Thank you so much for improving "<insert astronomical location> in fiction" articles to GA. I think you are the best person that can write an overview 'fiction' section in the Solar System article, since we don't really have a place to introduce to casual readers about these articles. You could take a look at Sea as an inspiration, but you are much knowledgeable about this than I am :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that's very kind. I might just do that, though not right away as I'm focusing on some other articles at the moment. By the way, I saw that you created Astronomical locations in fiction (on my watchlist since before the AfD) and the redirects List of astronomical locations in fiction and Solar System in fiction before WP:G7ing the former. You may also want to G7 the redirects as they currently redirect to a page that does not exist. TompaDompa (talk) 13:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that, I almost forgot that I created these redirects. I initially created Astronomical locations in fiction because I want to make a "hub article" for readers for me to link on the "See also" section in Solar System, but thinking about that again, it is not a great idea. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think there is probably enough coverage in the literature to write an article on the overarching topic of Solar System in fiction, which could perhaps also use WP:Summary style to serve as a hub article (so-to-speak). My preliminary plan is to create such an article once I'm done with my ongoing projects, assuming there is indeed enough in the sources to motivate such an article (I don't think it's a good idea to create an article that only summarizes the other articles if there isn't enough to say about how the Solar System as a whole has been portrayed in fiction). TompaDompa (talk) 14:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Lumping many identical RfDs together
When multiple simultaneously-submitted RfDs have the same rationale, AFAIK it's usually best to submit them as a group, so there can be a centralized discussion. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:55, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If the exact same considerations apply for all of them, sure. Here, that's not really the case, so lumping all of them together might result in a WP:TRAINWRECK if editors decide that Gamma Draconis in fiction, Bellatrix in fiction, Pollux in fiction, Mizar and Alcor in fiction, Regulus in fiction, and Wolf 359 in fiction should not all have the same outcome—and that might very well be the end result here. TompaDompa (talk) 00:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

"Stars and planetary systems in fiction" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stars_and_planetary_systems_in_fiction&redirect=no Stars and planetary systems in fiction] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Dacian Kingdom year and area
Hello, I'd like to inquire about adding information regarding the size of the Dacian kingdom. For the period spanning from Burebista's reign to Dacia's peak around 50 BC, some scholars estimated to have been approximately 640,000 km². Moving forward to 100 AD, during Decebalus's rule, the kingdom's estimated size is noted as 400,000 km² according to information on the wiki page BalcanVali (talk) 00:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The first and most important step is locating sources that give these figures explicitly. TompaDompa (talk) 04:05, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The first source is actually on Wikipedia. On the page of Dacians, it says: "By the year AD 100, more than 400,000 square kilometers were dominated by the Dacians."
 * Then, during the Dacian kingdom under Burebista in 50 BC, some scholars consider that Dacia had approximately 600,000 square kilometers, saying that the expansion of Burebista extended from Pannonia to the Black Sea, from the Carpathian Mountains to the Balkan Mountains, and from today's Apollonia and modern-day Varna to the Bug River, It's possible to have had approximately 600,000 square kilometers BalcanVali (talk) 01:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The page Dacians cites De Imperatoribus Romanis for this claim. The problem is that the source in question does not actually verify this claim—it says nothing about the Dacians ruling over 400,000 square kilometers. TompaDompa (talk) 15:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Kingdom of Decebalus 87-106
 * "By the year AD 100, more than 400,000 square kilometres were dominated by the Dacians, who numbered two million. Decebalus was the last king of the Dacians, and despite his fierce resistance against the Romans was defeated, and committed suicide rather than being marched through Rome in a triumph as a captured enemy"
 * this is in the page, check again BalcanVali (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That's a quote from the Wikipedia article Dacians. However, WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. TompaDompa (talk) 21:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Would this be reliable
Curious if you'd consider this reliable (to avoid future heartbreak) - https://dam.gettyimages.com/viewer/universal/rc3x9h8n56vqfxvhx7fjs

It's a production document for the film Abigail (2024 film) (I recommend btw, really good) so it has great non-interpreted character descriptions but it's hosted on Getty Images which I think you or someone else has previously challenged. I've been unable to find it anywhere else and since it will be for the press I can't get it through the film's main website. EDIT: MIght be moot actually, can't see a way to reliably archive it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have watched the film. I'm unsure if that document counts as being WP:PUBLISHED—was it made available to the public through official channels? I seem to recall leaked documents not counting as published for the purposes of being cited on Wikipedia, though I could be misremembering. If it counts as being published, an official document should be usable subject to the regular restrictions for primary and/or non-independent sources. I don't think being hosted on Getty Images should in itself be a problem–if the source is reliable because of who the author is, where it can be accessed shouldn't really matter (sometimes it may even be the case that the same source can be accessed through both high-quality and low-quality publishers or similar). I view this as akin to WP:EXPERTSPS—we allow, and I use, self-published sources when the authors are subject-matter experts. TompaDompa (talk) 14:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems to be publicly available if difficult to access and someone has helped me to archive it so I think based on what you're saying it should hopefully be fine. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Narwhal
Can you quickly read the lead section of narwhal and comment on the prose? Thanks for your time. Wolverine XI  ( talk to me ) 08:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Ways to improve Impact events in fiction
Hello, TompaDompa,

Thank you for creating Impact events in fiction.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

"Kudos and thanks for your contributions."

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with. Remember to sign your reply with. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Safari Scribe <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Edits! Talk! 22:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Article dispute
Hi Tompa! I was hoping I could get your help with something. I've spent the last two weeks editing the page for Princess Leia, and now someone has gotten upset at my editing and reverted all my hundreds of edits. They posted their criticism at the bottom of the talk page. How should I approach this? I'm going to dialogue with the user in a civil way, and we'll see what comes of the conversation. But is it appropriate for them to completely remove all my work with one click? I've gotten zero pushback on my edits over the last two weeks, so I've assumed that what I'm doing is okay. I may have made some mistakes (not sure), but I feel I've made a ton of improvements and removed a ton of trivia and unsourced and poorly sourced content. Wafflewombat (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Without looking all that deeply into the situation, I would say that the best approach is the one that you have taken: explain to the other editor why you think your edits are an improvement. Hopefully you can reach some kind of agreement about how to best improve the article, since that is ultimately what you both want. TompaDompa (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Parodies
Hey, I've got a quick question for you. Is it appropriate to mention parodies in a Cultural Impact section, if they are described by a secondary source? Wafflewombat (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It can be. As WP:PROPORTION says, articles should treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. "On the subject" is key; for the "Cultural impact" section of article X, what matters is how sources on the subject of article X treat the parody—not how sources about the parody treat the subject of article X. TompaDompa (talk) 22:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Very well-explained, thank you! Wafflewombat (talk) 01:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Supernovae in fiction
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Supernovae in fiction you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kusma -- Kusma (talk) 08:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Supernovae in fiction
The article Supernovae in fiction you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Supernovae in fiction for comments about the article, and Talk:Supernovae in fiction/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kusma -- Kusma (talk) 21:22, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Darth Vader discussion
Hello! I'm wondering if you can help me with something. Awhile back, you conducted a peer review of the Cultural Impact section of the Darth Vader page. You recommended that a small amount of the content be moved to other sections, and that the rest be scrapped. I followed your advice, and unfortunately haven't had the time to start rebuilding the section from scratch. Now, another editor has restored a bunch of the trivia that you suggested be removed. I'm having trouble explaining to her why the content is not appropriate. What should I do? You definitely don't have to read our entire discussion, but if you want to skim it, I'll post it here. You can probably skip the first half and start with the paragraph that begins with "Wafflewombat, I know you have been diligent..." Wafflewombat (talk) 08:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Black holes in fiction
The article Black holes in fiction you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Black holes in fiction for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Broc -- Broc (talk) 19:41, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Theme sections
I think a lot of films, certainly the ones I've worked on, have some very broadly accepted basic themes, like fascism in this case, dreams vs reality in the case of Total Recall, but when I first started this I was often required to include sources that were just someone's university thesis and so may offer a very niche interpretation without broad support, while at the same time getting basic facts about the subect film wrong, for example getting the names of Ghostbusters wrong while discussing Ghostbusters. So I'm against including it just for the sake of including it, and don't believe coverage of the film, particularly its production, should ever be sacrificed for such a section. So while I will include it as required, I don't think it's fair to count that wordcount against the article as a whole. Se7en for instance, feedback suggested I had not gone deep enough and so I added that content but the section is now 2500 words, making the overall article 10801 words, so the content relating to, again, a film with a very interesting production like Se7en, is only about 8200, but the themes section content will be counted against it's overall size. So in general I just dislike that by having to include it, the word count goes up, and that is used as a criticism. If that wasn't the case I would not particularly care about including such a section, but I vehemently oppose having to cull the sections discussing the core of the film to make space for interpretations of the film. It's more frustrating because, for older films in particular, the industry, both behind and in front of the scenes was not as straightforward and so there is more to cover because it was just a very different world to modern filmmaking, and I don't think 10,000 words is a lot personally, as I'll often decide to randomly read one of the articles to learn things I've since forgotten and I find them generally interesting to read in full so I'm sure others do as well. If it was 11, 12, close to 15,000 I'd probably agree myself but that I'm generally averaging 8000-10000, I think that's just reasonable to cover the types of older films I am, which coincidentally have a lot of cultural impact. Compare it to something like Mission: Impossible – Fallout which is under 8000 words, I would say because it is modern, has a much more streamlined production where little goes wrong, and it's not had the chance to generate a substantial cultural or lasting influence. So in summary, I grew to dislike them because I was being asked to use student essays and other fringe theories in them for films which just did not seem very deep, I grew to hate them because their contributions to the overall word count were, not individually, but overall leading to complaints about size. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That sounds mainly like an implementation issue to me (WP:DUE and whatnot)? I mean, "what does it mean?" is arguably the single most important thing about any piece of art. I gather you are also much more fascinated by the production as such than I am, which may account for a substantial part of our differing views on appropriate length. TompaDompa (talk) 18:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That probably would be were we differ, the "how" of ghostbusters is infinitely more fascinating than "because of capitalism in the 80s", but even if we assign equal importance to both areas, 10000 words or less is not a lot for specific subject articles with so much to cover.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The "how" or the "why" indeed. I'm going to disagree on the overall length thing, however—10,000 words is rather lengthy for a Wikipedia article, even if there is a lot to say about certain subjects. Sometimes it is justified to go beyond that (there is probably some kind of correlation between when this is appropriate and WP:Vital articles, now that I think of it), but that's comparatively rare and usually WP:Summary style and/or judicious copyediting for length should be applied instead. That's my position, anyway, and it is more-or-less in line with what WP:LENGTH says so it would seem to reflect project-wide consensus fairly well. TompaDompa (talk) 21:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * People quite readily quote SIZE or LENGTH, but my articles are always within or at the limit, the article very specifically says "A page of about 10,000 words takes between 30 and 40 minutes to read at average speed, which is close to the attention span of most readers." and that's assuming they're reading the whole thing in a single session, which they're not. Cleopatra is 13000 words long on top of the 20 or so sub articles it points to because someone is trying to be comprehensive. I wouldn't go that long, it's excessive to me, but the articles should be the whole picture, even if its production and analysis. Summary style refers to just taking the text and putting it somewhere else and leaving a summary behind, it's not about an overall style of writing. I'll also say that, anecdotally, the feedback I get on the articles is always positive, it's only at FAC where people act like we're Geocities with a 10mb bandwidth limit and everyone only has 5 minutes to read. It's exhausting, I've got a bunch of other projects mostly ready to go and this happens every time despite the text, even as it is right now, being below 10000 AND comprehensive. If we're not going to be comprehensive then honestly what's the point in Wikipedia? Each article may as well be a list of books and websites where you can go to read about a topic instead because we're only an encyclo, no time for the pedia. The implication, I guess, is that the production section should just say "Development began in 1991 based on Heinlein's novel. They filmed in 1996. The end."Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, Cleopatra—a level-3 WP:Vital article—seems like an article where it might plausibly be appropriate to significantly exceed the typical recommended length. Obviously a lot more has been written on that topic than about most topics we might write articles for. I know you're being facetious, but striking the right balance in terms of the appropriate level of detail, without getting either too granular or too broad-strokes about it, is a writing skill. Sometimes, less is indeed more and it might be necessary to kill one's darlings, as it were, by removing content one likes (in isolation, at least) but is detrimental to the overall impression—and in such cases, using WP:Summary style to preserve the "full story" in an article with a more narrow scope (assuming that's otherwise an appropriate topic for an article, of course) can be helpful. When people say an article is too long, it's likely that they think that the article quality (or indeed, writing quality) would be improved by copyediting for brevity. You don't have to agree with such assessments of course, but if you choose to interpret that kind of feedback in that manner, it might very well make it easier to collaborate productively with those editors even if you disagree. TompaDompa (talk) 23:11, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We self-determine what is a level 3 vita whatever, that doesn't make it more special than other articles or less subject to criticism or need to be less than the magic rule of, apparently, >6000 words. To put that into perspective, to reduce Scream from 9000 words to 6000 I had to delete basically the entire production section as seen here. How do you propose to cover a film in such minimal detail? I posted the nomination and 15 minutes later the first comment was about size, so are you saying that the comment related to writing quality throughout the article, which takes, as mentioned above, 40 minutes to read, or do we think "page size" was clicked and the figure presented was used as a point of criticism? It's easy to keep linking to summary style, even though again it says nothing about writing, but it's clear the comment and this subsequent discussion is based on the auto-generated figure and not the quality of the text. Anyway, this has become one of our customary roundabout discussions where we don't agree and I'm misquoted guidelines as gospel so you can imagine why I brought it over to your talk page instead of the nomination page. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not particularly involved in the vital article process, but the articles that are selected at those levels tend to be articles that get a high number of pageviews, on topics where there is extensive secondary literature, and which exist as articles on many different-language versions of Wikipedia. Those characteristics make it more likely that a more extensive article length is appropriate. Like I said, there is probably a correlation.I'm not familiar with the Scream situation, but it seems likely that whoever that was used word count as a proxy measure/heuristic, yes. It's also possible that they had already formed an opinion prior to your nomination or that they formed their opinion based on a sample of the article they read, meaning they wouldn't have to read the entire article in 15 minutes.Speaking for myself, I have found some articles you have nominated to have been excessively detailed in places. If that's a pattern that affects large portions of an article, it leads to an inflated word count. I'm not suggesting that reaching a particular word count is an end in itself, but I view word count as a useful (if blunt) metric for some purposes—such as quantifying the extent of perceived issues or comparing the relative weight given to different parts of a topic. If you find it meaningless, you don't have to care about the precise figure—whatever people may think it reflects about the underlying text, it necessarily does so indirectly. I know other people have said that the number itself is the point.I'm also not saying that shorter is better, even when the same information is conveyed. Sometimes, a version (whether it's of a sentence, paragraph, or something even lengthier) that uses a larger number of words simply works better. I know I'm not terribly economical with words at all times. My writing habits are such that if I don't make an active effort to avoid it, I can easily end up with articles that need significant copyediting for brevity. Conversely, the way I write leads can easily result in them ending up too short if I don't make a conscious effort to avoid it. I have at different times improved things I have written by variously making them longer or shorter—but there is a clear trend, namely that I tend to be too long-winded when not actively minding the length. If you have that same tendency—and I don't know whether that's the case—that could perhaps explain recurring prompts to cut down on length. If so, honestly engaging with those comments in good faith while trying to understand the reasoning behind why others think that would improve things is probably the best way forward both in the short and long term. I could be wrong, but I get the impression you view these comments as impositions, which is not an attitude that is likely to lead anywhere productive. TompaDompa (talk) 01:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Right, but as far as I can see from your edit history you work excluvely in the realm of space related articles relating to fiction, which is fine, but how does that mean your opinion is more valid than mine when it comes to what to include in an article on a film when that is the area I exclusively work in? You think something is trivia, I think it's interesting and other people will find it interesting, who wins that argument? Well it takes it to 6020 words, so let's remove it to hit that golden number and make sure the writing is super tight, dry, boring, and noone wants to read it. I've already been through the Starship Troopers article and removed and copyedited stuff before even bringing it to FAC because of the constant moaning of "What's the scouter say Vegeta?", "IT'S OVER TEN THOUSAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAND!" Now I've reduced it to under 10 thousand before we even started and FAR less not including the themes section and it's still the first fucking comment. It's an arbitrary GUIDELINE and yet it's still brought up each time in RECENT nominations because it was never an issue when I started these projects because we're not limited by size, page download speed, or reader's reading time. I can't read JW Rinzler's book on The Empire Strikes Back in 40 minutes, it's 300+ pages long, I don't see his editor saying "cut the interesting stuff, we've got a word count to hit!" The whole point is to be an encylopedia, people shouldn't have to go elsewhere to find information. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That's what I'm currently working on, but it's not the only area I have experience editing in. I have for instance edited film box office articles quite a bit and even written a full biographical article—George Griffith—and brought it to WP:Featured article status, though that was admittedly rather an aberration for me. Now on the one hand, being familiar with a topic and its sources puts one in a good position to evaluate what does and does not belong in an article—I have certainly pushed back against suggestions to focus more or less on particular aspects based on my assessments of the relevant literature and the relative weight given to different aspects therein. On the other hand, there is such a thing as becoming "homeblind" and not being able to recognize issues that are apparent to someone with an outside (or even just fresh) perspective. It takes humility to recognize that this might be the case. I have at times made changes to articles somewhat grudgingly at the suggestion of others and come to realize afterwards that they were actually significant improvements.You ask what viewpoint will prevail when editors disagree whether something should be included as pertinent or excluded as extraneous. Well, WP:CONSENSUS may end up on either side. My approach, regardless of whether I favour inclusion or exclusion, tends to be to look at it from a WP:PROPORTION perspective, i.e. assessing the relative weight given to that particular point by sources on the topic. That does not always result in me getting my way, nor does it always result in productive discussion, but I find it to be a very effective way of determining whether discussion can, in principle, be fruitful. When the editors who disagree with me respond to that specific point, discussion is highly likely to be very productive (and pleasant, usually), while editors who do not address that point are unlikely to be receptive to any kind of argument contrary to their viewpoint and thus unlikely to be swayed no matter what arguments are put forth. Still, sometimes disagreement remains despite our best efforts, and that can also be an acceptable outcome; I have had a couple of WP:Featured article nominations that were promoted with outstanding opposes.The whole point is to be an encylopedia, people shouldn't have to go elsewhere to find information. Articles should be complete, but that's not the same thing as exhaustive. See WP:NOTEVERYTHING: An article should not be a complete presentation of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Wikipedia is not supposed to replace all other outlets—IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes, and Box Office Mojo are all expected to contain details not found in a Wikipedia article about a particular film. Even sources that are not reliable, e.g. Wikia/Fandom and TV Tropes, are valuable complements in addition to Wikipedia to readers.I'm guessing your position on the issue is a bit more moderate than people shouldn't have to go elsewhere to find information might seem to suggest, but if you are truly of the opinion that Wikipedia should present at least certain types of information in full detail like that, I understand that it must be frustrating when people say that something should be trimmed and I can see why such comments might feel like impositions. Still, if that's your goal you will continually be working at cross-purposes with other editors. TompaDompa (talk) 18:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I can deal with specific feedback, just saying "too long" is neither useful or fair because it's not possible the person has read the article from start to finish. It could mean a single paragraph needs to go or it could mean the whole thing needs reworking, ut's not a helpful comment and ultimately, yes, it's within guideline and isn't an acceptable reason to block a nomination, yet, despite your own experiences, my experience is that an unfulfilled comment discourages others from reviewing and so the nomination dies. Fulfilled comments always seem to attract a follow up reviewer. So it's like throwing a bomb right into the middle of a hard worked nomination, and I've spent the last month uplifting Starship Troopers specifically for this nomination, not because it wasn't good but I knew the comment would be made like clockwork. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. TompaDompa (talk) 03:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)