Talk:Dyson sphere

Dyson sphere around white dwarfs

"This type would avoid the need for artificial gravity technology, in contrast to the AU-scale Dyson Spheres. In fact, we show that parameters can be found to build Dyson Spheres suitable —temperature- and gravity-wise— for human habitation. This type would be much harder to detect." from: http://phys.org/news/2015-03-idea-dyson-sphere.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.101.62.159 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

@Luizpuodzius:

Querendo traduzir é só dar um toque. Att

Good article reassessment

Dyson sphere

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Problems with OR, and plagiarism, and general sourcing issues. Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:01, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

This article was promoted back in 2007 upon its second nomination. Even then, the promotion was controversial because of perceived issues with the sourcing. Looking at this today, there are major sourcing issues, some of which I have highlighted by adding maintenance templates to the article. Large portions of the article are unsourced. Several references are to sources that do not appear to be reliable. Spotchecking sources reveals both material failing verification and plagiarism. The article consists to a large extent of WP:Original research by way of editorial WP:Synthesis, where sources are used to verify the underlying factual basis for the assertions made in the article (rather than verifying the assertions themselves) in a manner one would expect to find in an essay, rather than being cited in context and on topic as WP:NOR mandates. TompaDompa (talk) 23:23, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

In its present form this article falls far short of GA requirements. Much of the original research and synthesis, especially in the Variants section, is unlikely to be sourceable to anything reliable, and I'd suggest stripping all that out as a first step. Much of the rest (scientific rather than fictional/speculative) looks better, and there might just possibly be enough of that to save the article. Before things are removed wholesale - does anyone think the tagged material is at all sourceable? MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:05, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Some parts almost certainly are sourceable. I expect that the article would fail the broadness criterion if all the dubious material were removed (in fact, it might already do so). I agree that removing it would be a good first step, but I don't think it would be sufficient to meet the criteria. TompaDompa (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Star Trek

P Aculeius (and others): Do any sources on the topic of this article—Dyson spheres—discuss the Star Trek episode? See WP:PROPORTION: An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. (other ways of explaining the same concept in the context of fiction-related articles can be found at MOS:POPCULT and the essays WP:CARGO and WP:IPCV). "On the subject" is key here; It is not sufficient for sources on Star Trek (or that specific episode) to mention it. TompaDompa (talk) 13:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

You have clearly become a gatekeeper for this article, having deleted the same mention on previous occasions for various reasons. This is clearly a notable occurrence; the preceding paragraph mentions some relatively obscure novels that, with all page views combined, don't have half the views of the article about this one episode of Star Trek. It's the only example cited in the section that actually contains a three-dimensional, visual depiction of a Dyson sphere; all of the others are "mentions" or appearances in novels. The fact that Freeman Dyson himself watched and commented on the episode would seem to place its notability in reference to the concept beyond question. So it utterly baffles me that you're complaining—within minutes of the paragraph being re-added, with multiple citations to reliable, verifiable sources, since that was your reason for deleting it when someone else mentioned it in the past—that doing so now is giving undue weight to the source simply because television is popular culture! I'd love to see what other experienced editors have to say about this, because this complaint is really over-the-top! P Aculeius (talk) 13:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The visual depiction of a Dyson Sphere in this particular Star Trek TNG episode is one of the more notable references in fiction to the subject of the article. I appreciate that on Wikipedia there can be a lot of shoehorning 'popular culture references' into articles where it doesn't belong. In this case where the topic is a conceptual object which hasn't had too many fictional depictions it seems entirely appropriate however. That said, the sourcing could be improved. In particular there shouldn't be a cite to Wikipedia, that's a circular reference. ChiZeroOne (talk) 13:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree 1,000% - FlightTime (open channel) 14:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Where is it cited to Wikipedia? Some of the citations include author and episode links to Wikipedia articles, but the sources are the episode, novel, series guide, and interview with Freeman Dyson. The links are there because the series, episode, authors, and the magazine that sponsored the interview are all notable, and have their own articles; but those articles aren't the sources cited. P Aculeius (talk) 14:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

one of the more notable references in fiction By what metric? The metric that counts here is WP:PROPORTION, i.e. the coverage in sources on the topic at hand. TompaDompa (talk) 14:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, I have removed this several times, each and every time because it does not have proper sourcing for this article. You say that it is clearly a notable occurrence, but that's your opinion. Do sources on the overarching topic of this article—Dyson spheres—view it as such, as evidenced by covering it non-trivially? If so, add those sources. The number of pageviews Relics (Star Trek: The Next Generation) gets compared to e.g. The Wanderer (Leiber novel) is irrelevant—what matters is whether sources on the overarching topic discuss these fictional examples. Likewise, it doesn't matter if an example is from an on-screen medium or literature—what matters is the coverage in sources on the topic. That Freeman Dyson commented on it is an interesting piece of trivia for the episode, but it does not confer weight to its prominence in the overall literature on the topic of Dyson spheres (or their depiction in fiction).

On the subject of what other editors think, you may have noticed that I was not actually the first editor to edit the page after you—that was MichaelMaggs, who also emphasized the issue of relevance to this article (but thought inclusion was in principle okay). TompaDompa (talk) 14:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The fact that two people were acting as gatekeepers, editing down a short paragraph and then deleting it within minutes of its appearance, after the same reference had been added multiple times by other editors in the past, doesn't make things better.

You seem to want sources to say how notable one depiction is relative to other depictions before it can be included or discussed; I don't think this view will find much support in the Wikipedia community. The fact that the article on the episode itself had eight thousand page views over the last ninety days does say something about the notability of the depiction: it means that a lot of people have seen and are familiar with it. A lot more than have read most of the novels mentioning a Dyson sphere.

And I carefully made sure that the only things I mentioned in the paragraph were about the Dyson sphere itself, which although central to the plot of the episode, is not the most notable thing about it; that would have been James Doohan reprising his role as Montgomery Scott in an episode of The Next Generation. I did not mention anything about the plot, other than that the Enterprise was trapped in a Dyson sphere, and that it was the first ever observed; the size of the Dyson sphere and the fact that it was deserted due to its unstable sun seem relevant, since both the size and practical problems of a Dyson sphere seem relevant to the depiction of Dyson spheres in fiction.

I believe that I was quite economical with words; all of this took a mere three sentences in one short paragraph, followed by the fact that Freeman Dyson watched and commented on it—something not mentioned with respect to any of the other works, some of which aren't even about Dyson spheres, but "similar" ideas. Although I suggest that the "Dyson ring" in Ringworld may be worth another sentence or two; Larry Niven is a fairly important author, and Ringworld one of his most famous works (I read it, and its sequel, a couple of years ago, in part because I was interested in the Dyson sphere concept).

But the point is, what I wrote is not excessive, and not undue weight to one depiction, given that the details relate primarily to the depiction of a Dyson sphere, and not the plot of the episode. The sources are more than adequate to support what is said; adding more (such as the episode script, which is avaiilable, or reviews of the episode in magazines) would be cumulative, but not necessary. Quite a lot of editors seem to agree that it is a notable depiction; their opinions are just as valid as yours. P Aculeius (talk) 14:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

You seem to want sources to say how notable one depiction is relative to other depictions before it can be included or discussed; I don't think this view will find much support in the Wikipedia community. No, that's not what I said. Read what I wrote again. However, that relevance is determined by sources on the topic, not by the opinions of Wikipedia editors, is codified in Wikipedia's WP:Core content policy of WP:PROPORTION. Mind you that This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. (emphasis in original).

Quite a lot of editors seem to agree that it is a notable depiction; their opinions are just as valid as yours. Here you entirely correct, if only by mistake: their opinions, and yours, are equally irrelevant as mine. I should not have to tell you that the viewpoints of editors are irrelevant; this is a very basic level of understanding of our WP:Neutrality policy (The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is irrelevant and should not be considered.). TompaDompa (talk) 14:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

All this said, if we do find (at least decent-quality) sources on the topic of Dyson spheres, or their depictions in fiction, that mention the Star Trek episode, then we can mention it here—but the current level of detail, with an entire paragraph devoted to it including a bunch of plot information, would still be obviously disproportionate. I'll go looking for adequate sources. If I find any, I will add them—and copyedit this down to a more reasonable length that doesn't over-emphasize what would still be a relatively WP:MINORASPECT. TompaDompa (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Tagbombing the paragraph, as you just did, is also tendentious editing. Primary sources are perfectly valid for their own contents, and a secondary source is already cited that backs up everything cited to the primary sources. The level of detail is obviously not excessive, or full of "a bunch of plot information". The size of the Dyson sphere and the fact that it's deserted because its sun is unstable are both perfectly relevant to how the Dyson sphere is portrayed, since these are both things that go toward the plausibility and practicality of engineering a Dyson sphere. This is a short paragraph—about the same length as the others in the section—and you're just finding one excuse after the other to get rid of it. If this continues, I may have to refer it to the Administrators' noticeboard. P Aculeius (talk) 15:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Primary sources are okay for WP:Verifying in-universe plot details; they never confer WP:Notability or WP:Weight. The level of detail, compared to the level of detail provided by sources on the overarching topic (again, WP:PROPORTION says An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject.) was very obviously way out of proportion. It was a devoted paragraph all to itself, consisting of multiple sentences, way more than any other work of fiction got despite other works of fiction featuring more prominently in the secondary literature on the topic. I don't see how you can claim otherwise.

Lest we forget: you added this, were reverted through a series of edits by two editors, and then re-added it without discussion. I tagged the issues duly identified by me as well as MichaelMaggs only after you had unilaterally reintroduced the disputed material, as a second-best option for the moment. TompaDompa (talk) 15:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Your opinion is not better than that of three other editors who have told you otherwise. P Aculeius (talk) 15:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

No, but my grasp of policy is evidently better than yours. The opinions of editors do not matter here, as noted above. TompaDompa (talk) 16:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And now you've re-introduced your favoured version, I see. Perhaps you can explain how you think this level of detail is in line with treat[ing] each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject, as mandated by WP:PROPORTION? TompaDompa (talk) 15:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

It's a short paragraph describing in three sentences how a Dyson sphere is depicted in one notable work of fiction, and, at least at the time I wrote it, including the only description of Dyson's reaction to the depiction of one in a work of fiction. And before you lumped it together with multiple other paragraphs—and then reduced it to "a Dyson sphere appears in this episode", it was about the same length as the other paragraphs in the section. That's not disproportionate! P Aculeius (talk) 16:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

How is covering it at greater length, and greater visual prominence, than works that feature more prominently in the overall literature in the overarching topic compatible with WP:PROPORTION? TompaDompa (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

How much space is devoted to works of literature in literature about a subject is only one measure of significance. If you think an important depiction of a Dyson sphere in literature has been given short shrift, by all means expand upon it. I note that novels written many years before a depiction on television are naturally more likely to be discussed in the literature, much of which will also long predate the television episode. And the nature of novels allows them to provide much more in the way of technical details and descriptions.

But it's not reasonable to say that "this novel takes place on a Dyson sphere" establishes a limit for how long any description of a Dyson sphere's depiction in other literary works should be. If you can provide basic information about the Dyson spheres described in the two or three novels that mention them, by all means do so; a paragraph on each would not make this section unwieldy. The fact that these mentions do not currently describe the Dyson spheres that occur in those works does not mean that there should be no description of the Dyson spheres that occur in literature. P Aculeius (talk) 16:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

How much space is devoted to works of literature in literature about a subject is only one measure of significance. That's true, but the coverage in the literature on the topic is the measure Wikipedia uses in assigning due weight, as a matter of policy. You keep ignoring this very central point as though it were optional to abide by.

a paragraph on each would not make this section unwieldy A paragraph on each would be disproportionate both in terms of the coverage they get by the sources relative to each other and in terms of the coverage Dyson spheres get in the sources as a fictional concept compared to as a theoretical concept. TompaDompa (talk) 16:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Lumping several paragraphs together to minimize any one mention, then reducing the discussion of how a Dyson sphere is depicted in a notable work of fiction to "a Dyson sphere appears in this episode" is beyond any reasonable editing. Since you're unwilling to behave reasonably and showing clear ownership behaviour, the next step will be to involve third parties—other than the ones who've already weighed in in this discussion, and told you that it's quite notable. P Aculeius (talk) 15:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, I removed the circular sourcing and replaced it with secondary sources using Space.com and Popular Mechanics, although the latter only has the merest mention of the episode. I hope this helps. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 16:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the source, but the episode itself should still have been cited, IMO. It's a valid source for its contents, since anyone who views it can verify what it's about, and all of the details mentioned. I believe that our verifiability policy explicitly states that works of literature are valid sources for their own contents, e.g. The Adventures of Bob Ross has twenty-two chapters, the main characters are Bob Ross and Boberta Moss, Captain Ahab is obsessed with a white whale called "Moby Dick". Secondary sources are always appreciated, however. P Aculeius (talk) 16:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

There is a wikilink to the episode so that is taken care of. Using the wikilink in the article and as a source is circular and Wikipedia cannot be used to reference itself. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 16:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. You can't cite the contents of a television episode to the episode itself if it already has an article on Wikipedia? Then what is the "episode-link" parameter in the cite television episode template for? The source is the episode, not the Wikipedia article about the episode. I don't see why this would be any different from citing to a book that's notable enough to have its own article. P Aculeius (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:PSTS Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. We have two secondary sources there is no need for a primary one, let alone double linking to the Wikipedia article. You are the only one arguing for the need for a primary source here and I fail to understand why it is so necessary to you. You wanted inclusion of the episode and now it is included and with reliable sourcing. Why not drop the stick and take the win rather than push further with no consensus at all for your version? ThaddeusSholto (talk) 16:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I felt it was appropriate to cite the episode itself for its contents—something apparently not detailed in Popular Mechanics, and because it provided bibliographic information on the episode, which otherwise you have to go to another article to find (and not all television episodes have that). Since the material was previously deleted for being "unsourced" even though it clearly identified the source, I chose to err on the side of caution and cite everything very carefully. I questioned your deletion of the source, because it sounded like you thought that I was citing the Wikipedia article about the episode as a source, rather than the episode itself, and that's not what I was doing. P Aculeius (talk) 18:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The material was not removed for being "unsourced" even though it clearly identified the source, it was removed for lacking proper sourcing. That is to say, lacking sourcing on the overarching topic: Dyson spheres (or their depiction in fiction). The fact that you felt it necessary to cite the primary source itself for the plot details—rather than getting them from the relevant sources on the overarching topic—should tell you something. If sources on the overarching topic do not cover the plot details, those plot details are not an important WP:ASPECT of the overarching topic even if they are an important aspect of the episode itself.

This level of detail could dubiously be justified at a hypothetical Dyson spheres in fiction article that also goes into much more detail about the works of fiction deemed by the sources to be major examples, but it is way out of WP:PROPORTION to its significance to this topic—Dyson spheres. We currently devote 50 words to describing in-universe details of a Star Trek episode that, going by the sources on the overarching topic, is a rather minor example. The article currently says The USS Enterprise is trapped in a Dyson Sphere [...]. It is the first such structure to be discovered, and is measured at two hundred million kilometers in diameter. The sphere has been abandoned by its inhabitants, apparently because its central sun has become unstable, emitting dangerous solar flares and radiation. Why mention that the Enterprise is trapped on the inside? Why mention that it is the first to be discovered (in-universe)? Why go into details about how the central star has become unstable? How important is the exact size? A much, much briefer summary could for instance be [In the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode "Relics",] a Dyson sphere that has been abandoned after its central star became unstable appears. or for that matter [...] an abandoned Dyson sphere whose central star has become unstable appears. TompaDompa (talk) 19:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Can you possibly be more nitpicky than to complain about even the slightest detail besides "appears in foo"? What use is that to anyone? It's three sentences, one of which mentions the Dyson sphere, the second of which says it's the first such thing discovered and how big it is, and the third says it's abandoned and why—this level of complete hostility and ownership with one half-baked reason after another for deleting, minimizing, desourcing, tagbombing, and belittling a single short paragraph because you don't like the fact that it's there at all is beyond all reason. P Aculeius (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

P Aculeius, this edit that you made this afternoon is disruptive. When someone reverts your addition, with reasons given, you must *not* simply put it back while discussion is ongoing on the talk page. It is for *you* to establish that you have consensus for any additional text, and per WP:BRD you need to discuss, not repeatedly revert. You have stated no policy-based reason for including "The USS Enterprise is trapped. The sphere is the first such structure to be discovered, and is measured at two hundred million kilometers in diameter. It has been abandoned by its inhabitants, apparently because its central sun has become unstable, emitting dangerous solar flares and radiation. None of that adds anything to this article. It is no more than trivial Star Trek trivia that fails WP:PROPORTION (and "engineering marvel" is unsourced). You have got the Star Trek mention you wanted; leave it at that. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)