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)

You literally reduced a useful, well-sourced and brief paragraph to a passing mention within minutes; that was the disruptive thing. You didn't seem to think there was any need to discuss it before you did that; apparently only other people need to discuss things on the talk page, but you and TompaDompa don't, because you own the topic and get to decide what's relevant and how much can be said by anyone else. If it's "trivial trivia that adds nothing to this article", then of course you need to delete it—according to you it violates all kinds of policies, so it all needs to go. Just do it already. P Aculeius (talk) 22:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Come on, now. WP:Comment on content, not on the contributor. If you think there are WP:Ownership issues, the proper venue to raise that point is WP:ANI—though I would recommend reflecting upon WP:BOOMERANG first. TompaDompa (talk) 15:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Having reviewed the page history of both this and the former article, "Dyson spheres in popular culture", I'm fairly confident that, irrespective of how heated this discussion got, you'd have a hard time defending removing this well-sourced and relevant content again. In various forms it was part of "Dyson spheres in popular culture" from its creation in 2006 to 2021, when you deleted 90% of the article, reducing it to two paragraphs—which was why it got merged here after hardly expanding beyond that over the next two-and-a-half years. That, and your deleting nearly every contribution other editors made during that time, all on the grounds that they "lacked proper sourcing".

However, in most instances the source was obvious, and what you could have done was look for other sources or provide citations, instead of deleting them all within hours. The way you've chosen to apply the relevant policies prevented the topic from expanding beyond a stub, or even providing a useful overview of the treatment of Dyson spheres in the handful of examples that weren't deleted. After merging, you and MichaelMaggs continued deleting almost every contribution made by other editors—you on the grounds of inadequate sourcing, he on the grounds that they were all "trivial"—a claim repeated last night, in which he called "Relics", and I quote, "trivial Star Trek trivia".

The fact that fifteen different editors have thought it notable and relevant, and tried to restore this particular example to "Dyson spheres in popular culture", as well as the merged and retitled section since 2021, should have suggested that it's a notable example, and perhaps shouldn't have been deleted over and over again. As should the fact that two other editors immediately registered their agreement with that position before this conversation got out of control yesterday.

Instead, the reaction was first, delete it piece-by-piece; remove the sources; tag it in multiple and redundant ways; delete it again; replace the sources that actually say something about the episode with sources that merely mention it; cut out sentences you don't like, arguing that they're irrelevant or barred by policy; rewrite what remains so that it says what you want it to say; and continue to argue ad nauseam that it doesn't belong in this article in the first place.

So yes, I stand by my position that you and MichaelMaggs have made yourselves owners and gatekeepers of this article, and have gone far beyond any reasonable limits in keeping out any content that you personally disagree with including, no matter what reasons other editors have provided for including it. And I think that will be apparent to anyone who reviews the history of this article and the former "Dyson spheres in popular culture". P Aculeius (talk) 16:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

If you start by assuming that when I say that I want the article to abide by WP:PROPORTION by treating each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject I mean exactly that, I assure you it will all make a lot more sense to you. For starters: I cleaned up Dyson spheres in popular culture from a version that was a TV Tropes-style list that did not have any sources on the overarching topic whatsoever and turned it into a brief prose article based on sources about the overarching topic. Maybe this is a novel approach to you, but it is a tried-and-tested one for articles like this—indeed, there are even articles that were improved from precisely that kind of list without proper sourcing to WP:Featured article status, namely Mars in fiction (which I rewrote from scratch) and Venus in fiction (which Piotrus cleaned up, followed by the two of us collaborating on bringing it up to FA quality). The reason those articles (as well as Sun in fiction, which was not converted from a bad article to a quality one but which I wrote properly from the start) can be of FA quality is precisely that they do indeed abide by WP:PROPORTION by relying on sources on their respective overarching topics for establishing the appropriate relative weight of different aspects and examples. That the Dyson spheres in popular culture article was never improved to that level of quality by way of expansion is largely a result of high-quality sources on that topic being comparatively scarce. You can scoff at removing material for lacking proper sourcing, but you must realize that certain sourcing requirements (which differ from context to context) are an integral part of how Wikipedia works. Your assertion that in most instances the source was obvious, and what you could have done was look for other sources or provide citations leads me to believe that you (still!) do not understand what kind of sourcing is actually required here.

You seem to be under the impression that editors, not sources, decide what's relevant to a topic (seeing as you have said Quite a lot of editors seem to agree that it is a notable depiction; their opinions are just as valid as yours. and The fact that fifteen different editors have thought it notable and relevant [...] should have suggested that it's a notable example, as well as other things along similar lines). That's just not how Wikipedia works. I know I sound like a broken record, but please read and understand WP:PROPORTION (and the rest of WP:NPOV, for that matter): articles should treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. That's sources, not editors—surely you must understand that?

You also seem to be under the impression that my objection to the Star Trek example has been that I disapprove of it per se. I put it to you that this is nonsensical in light of the fact that I repeatedly brought up the issue of whether there are sources that would make its inclusion WP:PROPORTION-compliant (Do any sources on the topic of this article—Dyson spheres—discuss the Star Trek episode? and 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. and 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 [...] I'll go looking for adequate sources. If I find any, I will add them) and then located such sources and added them to the article. I have no reason to want to remove the Star Trek example now as it is, even if not well-sourced, at least adequately-sourced. Again, if you just assume that I mean precisely what I say when I make reference to abiding by WP:PROPORTION, you will certainly find that it makes much more sense.

You must not have read what MichaelMaggs wrote particularly carefully, or else you are deliberately misrepresenting what they said, because they didn't say that the episode was trivial or trivia, they said that the plot description (specifically 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—note that the episode title was not mentioned) was.

I don't mean to be rude, but have you considered the possibility that maybe you are simply in the wrong here? You say that the discussion got "heated" and "out of control"—I put it to you that I, and other editors, explained why we disagree repeatedly (often with clearly-outlined policy-based reasons to back those positions up), while you got irate and accused others of wrongdoing and malicious intent. TompaDompa (talk) 18:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I put it to you that you're the ones making a mountain out of a molehill—you could have left what I wrote alone as a reasonable addition, but you deleted it, then worked to change, cut, replace, rewrite, and otherwise argue that it didn't belong in the article, so you could get rid of something you just don't like, the same as you did fifteen other times in the last two and a half years. I'll also note that the first sentence in the above quotation isn't what I wrote. It's what MichaelMaggs rewrote because he didn't like what I had written.

But those three sentences are the whole of what was left of what I wrote, other than what Freeman Dyson said about the episode—which you two also took issue with, simply because I described a Dyson sphere as an "engineering marvel". I guess that's too controversial a description, not neutral enough, because some people might not think that a Dyson sphere would be an engineering marvel! But if you're arguing that everything I wrote about it is "trivial Star Trek trivia", then no, I didn't misrepresent anything. That's not a "plot description". A "plot description" would be,

The Enterprise discovers a huge object that might be a Dyson sphere, with a crashed ship on it. Inside the ship, they find two patterns in the transporter buffer, and manage to rematerialize former Enterprise Chief Engineer Montgomery Scott, who has been preserved for seventy-five years in the transporter. The Enterprise then enters the Dyson sphere, and the crew studies the structure with interest, before realizing that the ship is trapped, and threatened by dangerous radiation from the sphere's central star.

While the crew works to free the Enterprise from the Dyson sphere, Scotty tries to come to terms with being seventy-five years in the future, with his crewmate and everyone he knew now dead, and hopelessly out of place in the twenty-fourth century. He interacts with various members of the crew, in some case with callbacks to his more memorable scenes from the original Star Trek.

After a long talk with Captain Picard aboard a replica of the original Enterprise bridge on the holodeck, Scotty has much to think about. With moments to spare, the Enterprise finds a way to open the gate of the Dyson sphere, and escapes to safety. Scotty bids a sentimental farewell to his new friends, as he goes to make a new life for himself.

That's a fairly economical "plot description", and it hardly provides any details about the Dyson sphere, since the details of how it's portrayed are incidental to the plot. Mentioning that "The Enterprise is trapped in a Dyson sphere" is not fluff; it's the briefest possible explanation of why a Dyson sphere appears in the episode. The description of the Dyson sphere's size, the fact that it's deserted, and the fact that its central sun is unstable and emitting dangerous flares and radiation is incidental to the plot, but key to how the sphere is portrayed in the episode—as well as suggesting some of the possible engineering details and challenges of a Dyson sphere.

That's precisely what kind of description that should be in this article: not what happens in the episode, but how the Dyson sphere is portrayed. The fact that you two object even to this, and to the sentence "The Enterprise finds itself trapped in a Dyson sphere" because it contains even a whiff of plot, and would rather delete the whole thing, or grudgingly permit "a Dyson sphere appears in this episode" without any discussion of how the sphere is portrayed, just shows how unreasonable your gatekeeping standards are. P Aculeius (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Again with the aspersions of bad faith and baseless assumption that people disagree with you due to some personal dislike of the example in question.

That's precisely what kind of description that should be in this article: not what happens in the episode, but how the Dyson sphere is portrayed. This may shock you, but I actually agree with this part—provided that it is in WP:PROPORTION to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. TompaDompa (talk) 22:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I submit that the description of "Relics" as I wrote it is not out of proportion to its treatment in non-fiction literature about the subject of Dyson spheres.

That body of literature is not very substantial in the first place, precisely because Dyson spheres are a hypothetical—in fact highly speculative—idea that few scientists, including the late Freeman Dyson believe could actually exist, and which could not be practically constructed using any known methods; they exist only in hypotheses, thought experiments, and fiction. Many non-fiction sources mention Dyson spheres, but very few of them will be longer than a magazine article, because none are known to exist, no realistic plans for building one have ever been drawn up, and it's likely that the most detailed descriptions that exist are the ones that occur in works of fiction.

Any fictional treatment of Dyson spheres mentioned in non-fiction literature about the subject is likely notable, and "Relics" is one of the few examples of Dyson spheres in fiction that is is mentioned in such literature. That's all that's necessary to justify a description of the Dyson sphere from "Relics". It's not necessary for every part of that description to be in the non-fiction literature; just that the literature mentions it. As long as the description itself is verifiable, of a reasonable length, and is narrowly tailored to discuss the Dyson sphere as it is depicted, without adding unnecessary and irrelevant details about the episode's plot, it should be fine. I don't believe that the paragraph I wrote went into unnecessary or irrelevant detail; it was short and to the point, and did not need to be shortened significantly, much less by half.

The same would be true of any of the novels named: if they're significant enough to be mentioned at all, then it's fair to provide a description of the Dyson spheres (or in the case of Ringworld, the Dyson ring) that are depicted. For example, a brief description of Ringworld, how it's constructed, and perhaps who built or inhabited it, without getting into the details of the novels' plot, would be reasonable, even if none of the scholarly articles about Dyson spheres do more than mention Ringworld as a variation on the theme. One paragraph apiece on the most prominent examples does not seem excessive, but if the section did become quite large, it might be appropriate to split the list back into a separate article again.

But to return to "Relics", it's likely that more people have watched that episode of Star Trek than have read all of the novels mentioned combined, and that more people first encountered—or at least became familiar with—the Dyson sphere concept due to watching "Relics" than through all of the scholarly literature on the topic.

And as the only example of the concept in fiction which we know that Freeman Dyson himself commented upon, the episode is particularly worthy of mention—not a passing mention, saying nothing more than "a Dyson sphere occurs in an episode of this show" but at least a short paragraph, such as the one I wrote. To which I would perhaps add the estimate of its (internal) surface area, said to be approximately 250 million [planets]. This could probably be combined with the sentence giving the estimate of its diameter. I didn't recall the estimate of its surface area when I wrote the paragraph, but it seems relevant to how Dyson spheres are portrayed in works of fiction, and mentioning it does not seem excessive. P Aculeius (talk) 06:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I submit that the description of "Relics" as I wrote it is not out of proportion to its treatment in non-fiction literature about the subject of Dyson spheres. – Right, now we're talking. All that's left now is to demonstrate that this is indeed the case.

That body of literature is not very substantial in the first place, precisely because [...] – It is comparatively sparse, yes, but it's not like there isn't extensive literature on completely unrealistic science fiction concepts. Time travel is a good example.

Any fictional treatment of Dyson spheres mentioned in non-fiction literature about the subject is likely notable – Just to make sure that we're talking about the same thing, WP:Notability in the Wikipedia sense is not what's relevant here. Whether something is an important/significant/relevant/major WP:ASPECT is.

"Relics" is one of the few examples of Dyson spheres in fiction that is is mentioned in such literature – I have to ask: have you surveyed the literature on the topic? Because I have (assuming the topic we're talking about is specifically the depiction of Dyson sphere in fiction and not Dyson spheres in general), and while I can't claim that it was exhaustive, it should at least be a representative sample of the relatively high-quality sources that exist (e.g. the "Dyson Sphere" entry in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction). I don't know where you would draw the line for "few" examples, but we're talking at least a dozen and a half (more if counting sequels separately) even if we are fairly restrictive in what sources we consider—and "Relics" is not one of the works most frequently mentioned, or one of the works discussed the most in-depth, or one of the works typically covered by the most high-quality sources.

The same would be true of any of the novels named: if they're significant enough to be mentioned at all, then it's fair to provide a description of the Dyson spheres [...] One paragraph apiece on the most prominent examples does not seem excessive, but if the section did become quite large, it might be appropriate to split the list back into a separate article again. – See above about the number of works we would be talking about. It would be completely out of WP:PROPORTION here at this article. Dyson spheres are primarily a hypothetical, not fictional concept. Now I was opposed to merging Dyson spheres in popular culture here (though it should really have been called Dyson spheres in fiction), but if we're going to split the fiction section off it should be because there is consensus that it would be a better way to cover the topic, not just becomes it becomes unmanageably bloated. Adding a bunch of raw data—whether you want to call it "plot description", "in-universe details", or something else—from the works of fiction themselves does not an article make (see the essay WP:CARGO for details). What you are describing is in fact basing an article chiefly on WP:Primary sources, which is not how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is not, nor is it supposed to be, a secondary source where editorial interpretation, analysis, and synthesis is allowed (or even encouraged).
You would have us turning the article into a TV Tropes-style article—now I like TV Tropes, but they do things completely differently than we do here at Wikipedia. Trying to apply a TV Tropes approach to Wikipedia content is a "square peg, round hole" type of situation. I would personally be in favour of linking to TV Tropes in the "External links" section in much the same way we do with IMDb links (and I would also be in favour of linking to Wikia/Fandom in this way), but I suppose a broader consensus would be needed to implement that.

One paragraph apiece on the most prominent examples – Out of curiosity: how would you determine which the most prominent examples are?

I'm sure that you would agree that if a hypothetical book-length source on the topic devoted an entire chapter to work A and only a sentence to work B, that would indicate that work A is a more important instance of this topos than work B, and our article should reflect this difference in relative weight placed upon the two works by the relevant literature, right? Likewise if twenty sources discuss work C and only one work D—right?

But to return to "Relics", it's likely that more people have watched that episode of Star Trek than have read all of the novels mentioned combined, and that more people first encountered—or at least became familiar with—the Dyson sphere concept due to watching "Relics" than through all of the scholarly literature on the topic. – Maybe, but that's irrelevant here. Coverage in the secondary literature is what matters.

And as the only example of the concept in fiction which we know that Freeman Dyson himself commented upon – It isn't. He very specifically commented upon Olaf Stapledon's Star Maker, indeed even noting that's where he got the idea from.
And as the only example of the concept in fiction which we know that Freeman Dyson himself commented upon, the episode is particularly worthy of mention – Dyson commenting on the episode is interesting, and if we are going to cover the episode I think it's worth briefly mentioning, but it does not in itself mean that the episode should be covered here—that comes down to the coverage in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. Dyson commenting on the episode is information about the episode (and should therefore be covered on the article about the episode: Relics (Star Trek: The Next Generation)), not about the topic of this article—Dyson spheres. TompaDompa (talk) 11:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

If something is itself notable by mention in "serious" literature, you do not need the literature to list all of its details; you can use primary sources to describe it, because those are the best sources for their own contents. What's prohibited is analyzing or commenting on the primary sources, not using them as sources for a plain, factual description of their own contents. And the amount of coverage found in "serious" literature is not the sole factor to consider: familiarity to the general public is perfectly relevant.

One brief paragraph is not out of proportion to the article as it currently stands; certainly not as the section "Dyson spheres in fiction" stands, and the rest of the article itself certainly would have the potential for expansion if anyone chose to incorporate more of the available material on the subject; the fact that that isn't being done shouldn't mean that none of the sections can be expanded beyond their current size.

As it is, the two remaining paragraphs are clunky and cluttered because all of the works have been lumped together; the sentence about "big dumb objects" does not seem to belong in the first paragraph, and the concept ought to be explained in more detail rather than merely pointing to other articles. The next three examples from novels or novel series should be a separate paragraph, potentially expanded if any of the examples listed were described in more detail; but as they are, they form a discrete unit.

Following this, a paragraph on "Relics", because the material is available and was already written, focusing on the Dyson sphere, not the episode's plot. Then "variations on the theme", if they're not being further expanded at this time. None of this would substantially increase the size of the section, but they would make it more readable, and nothing should prevent any of the examples from being expanded to two or three sentences describing the Dyson spheres or related objects as they're portrayed.

It makes no sense to prevent the growth of this section merely because it might become unwieldy, since that is how Wikipedia articles are supposed to work; if the contents of one section become disproportionate to their overall importance, they can be split off into articles of their own, just as "Dyson spheres in popular culture" was for seventeen years. But that hasn't happened yet, and the need to do so in the future is as hypothetical as Dyson spheres themselves.

Merely naming notable examples of Dyson spheres in fiction is of little value to the reader, as it requires the reader to survey numerous articles written with differing levels of attention to detail, often focused on aspects of those works other than the portrayal of Dyson spheres. The usefulness of "Dyson spheres in fiction" isn't merely that it points readers to other articles in which they might be able to find some descriptions of fictional Dyson spheres if someone has bothered to supply them, and if they're not buried under mountains of plot details or the background of novels or scripts. It's that the relevant details can be sifted out and collected in one place, focused precisely on how Dyson spheres are portrayed. Those details aren't "trivia"; they're what justifies the existence of the section. P Aculeius (talk) 14:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

As I said above: primary sources are okay for WP:Verifying in-universe information, but they never confer WP:Notability or WP:Weight.

the amount of coverage found in "serious" literature is not the sole factor to consider: familiarity to the general public is perfectly relevant – That's just straight-up wrong when it comes to weight. Please read and understand WP:PROPORTION (and the rest of WP:NPOV, for that matter): articles should treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. It doesn't say "proportional to its familiarity to the general public", now does it? In fact, WP:NPOV explicitly states more generally that The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is irrelevant and should not be considered.

Merely naming notable examples of Dyson spheres in fiction is of little value to the reader – I don't entirely disagree, but what is of value to the reader is not pure description of in-universe details either, but rather overarching analysis—which of course needs to come from the sources, not editors. The essay WP:CARGO describes this very well, methinks. TompaDompa (talk) 16:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I think you're misapplying the policies, and relying on an essay that has no application here. "Treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject" does not mean, "the maximum length of discussion in Wikipedia is determined exclusively by the length of discussion in reliable, published material on the subject."

And discussing notable examples of fictional Dyson spheres under the heading of "Dyson spheres in fiction" in no way constitutes "cargo cult encyclopedia article editing". The author of that essay did not intend to exclude discussion of noteworthy examples: this is not the equivalent of "a Mormon character blowing her nose in this episode of this television series," and discussing a notable example is not a mere accumulation of "raw data".

The opinion of editors other than yourself as to what amount of discussion is reasonable and proportionate to the treatment of a fictional example in reliable, published material is not only relevant, but determinative. Four separate editors who have dared to wade into this minefield have said that "Relics" is a particularly noteworthy example of a Dyson sphere in fiction, and worthy of a brief discussion. In their opinion, one paragraph describing the Dyson sphere from "Relics" is not disproportionate and does not violate NPOV. Just because you interpret the same policies to reach a different conclusion does not make everyone else wrong. P Aculeius (talk) 17:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I hope you aren't including me in the "Four separate editors who have dared to wade into this minefield" because at no point did I say "Relics" was particularly noteworthy. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 17:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

"Treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject" does not mean, "the maximum length of discussion in Wikipedia is determined exclusively by the length of discussion in reliable, published material on the subject." – No, but it does mean that when sources give a lot of weight to X so should we, and when they give only a little weight to Y so should we. As WP:NPOV points out, it's not just about length: Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery.

I wouldn't presume to tell you what Uncle G meant when they wrote the essay WP:CARGO back in 2008, but we can always just ask as they are still active on Wikipedia. The point I was making above is that in writing articles like this, analysis is paramount and examples are secondary/complementary to that analysis, and I think the "Collecting raw data does not produce an analysis" paragraph is a good way of explaining that concept.

In their opinion, one paragraph describing the Dyson sphere from "Relics" is not disproportionate and does not violate NPOV. – Great, then back that up with sources and we should all reach agreement. I have, as I stated above, made an actual attempt to survey the relevant literature—and I came to the conclusion that based on the sources, "Relics" is a relatively WP:MINORASPECT. Have you likewise surveyed the literature on the topic (i.e. not just gone looking for sources that cover "Relics"), or is it your opinion that it is a particularly noteworthy example of a Dyson sphere in fiction? TompaDompa (talk) 18:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

It's your opinion that it shouldn't be discussed in any detail as a "minor aspect". And I don't need secondary sources to say "this treatment is more important than that one" or "the following are the most important treatments of this subject in fiction"—there will rarely ever be that kind of discussion in the literature—all the more so because Dyson spheres are themselves hypothetical and improbable.

Whether something is worthy of inclusion in an article is for editors to decide—not one or two editors acting as gatekeepers and ignoring all contrary opinions. Your contention may be that other editors aren't entitled to decide what's particularly noteworthy, but no matter how many policies you cite or how often you cite them, the notion that they support your position is just your judgment, and other editors are just as entitled to make up their own minds as to how basic Wikipedia policies apply to this specific example. P Aculeius (talk) 18:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

It's your opinion that it shouldn't be discussed in any detail as a "minor aspect". – No, it isn't. As in, that's not the position I have taken. Have you read what I have written?

And I don't need secondary sources to say "this treatment is more important than that one" or "the following are the most important treatments of this subject in fiction"—there will rarely ever be that kind of discussion in the literature—all the more so because Dyson spheres are themselves hypothetical and improbable. – No, but surely you understand that the coverage in sources can indicate variations in relative weight in other ways than explicit statements about relative weight? As I said above: surely you would agree that if a hypothetical book-length source on the topic devoted an entire chapter to work A and only a sentence to work B, that would indicate that work A is a more important instance of this topos than work B, and our article should reflect this difference in relative weight placed upon the two works by the relevant literature, right? Likewise if twenty sources discuss work C and only one work D—right?

Your second paragraph boils down to Wikipedia's WP:Core content policies, specifically WP:NPOV and WP:PROPORTION in particular, being optional and subject to being overridden by local consensus. That's just not how Wikipedia works. That the sources are what determine the relative weight of different aspects, not editors, isn't just my opinion—it's a fundamental aspect of how Wikipedia works and such a basic level of understanding thereof that I honestly kind of assumed that you did not need it to be explained. I am certain that you would not advance this argument about a WP:BLP article, that we should include the things we as editors think are important in the proportion we find them to be important instead of reflecting the importance placed upon them by the sources on the topic. The same principles apply to all articles. TompaDompa (talk) 18:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

You're the one who doesn't seem to understand that it's only your interpretation that the policies apply to this example the way you say they do, and that your opinion is not one iota better than anyone else's. No matter how often you talk down to me and tell me I just don't understand how Wikipedia works, it doesn't make your opinions facts, and it doesn't mean you get to disregard what other editors say about how the policies apply to this example. P Aculeius (talk) 19:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I'll humour you: what do you think 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. means? TompaDompa (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Still talking down to me, I see. I don't know of any reason why you would read that as a precise description of the length of a contribution, rather than a vague guide that reasonable editors could differ on. This section is about "Dyson spheres in fiction", not a "list of fictional works that include Dyson spheres". Obviously a fictional work in which a Dyson sphere occurs has to be named to be of any value; but if it can't describe the Dyson sphere as it's depicted in the work, then it's not really about "Dyson spheres in fiction"—it's a "list of fictional works that include Dyson spheres". At a bare minimum, any work included in this section ought to have at least a general description; having enough of a description to be useful to readers interested in the depiction of Dyson spheres in fiction can't be disproportionate to the importance of any work of fiction that's important enough to be mentioned in this section. Describing the diameter, surface area, mass, or brief notes on the structure or structural defects of the Dyson sphere in two or three sentences isn't excessive by any criteria. P Aculeius (talk) 12:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

why you would read that as a precise description of the length of a contribution – I have to admit that I'm not sure exactly what you meant by this, but your reference to "a precise description of the length" suggests to me that you think I hold some (unclear) position that I do not.

a vague guide that reasonable editors could differ on – Let's say for the sake of argument that it is. What does treat[ing] each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject mean to you, then?

Describing the diameter, surface area, mass, or brief notes on the structure or structural defects of the Dyson sphere in two or three sentences isn't excessive by any criteria. – Are those the WP:ASPECTS that sources in the topic focus on? If not, it would be out of WP:PROPORTION to the coverage of those aspects in in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. TompaDompa (talk) 17:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@ThaddeusSholto: No, I wasn't including you; I don't intentionally ascribe opinions to people who haven't voiced them. I meant myself, the two other editors who agreed when this argument first started, and the one who replied below, though the last wasn't as strongly in support as I'd have liked. But then, I don't know who pinged him to prop up what position. P Aculeius (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

For the record, I linked to Piotrus' user page here to give due credit for playing an important role in bringing Venus in fiction to WP:Featured article status. TompaDompa (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Wait a minute, that's who you were referring to when you said that In their opinion, one paragraph describing the Dyson sphere from "Relics" is not disproportionate and does not violate NPOV.? The editor who said what we in the current reversion seems fine (two sentences, one about the episode, one about Dyson's own commentary) back when the current version looked like this and categorically did not have one paragraph describing the Dyson sphere from "Relics"? TompaDompa (talk) 18:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) But I don't mind it being there at all; I care about abiding by WP:PROPORTION. This is something you seem not to understand. I raised the question of sources on the overarching topic covering this in my very first post here. If sources on the overarching topic make a big deal of this example, it should be covered here. If they cover it only a little, it should at most be covered briefly here. That the Star Trek Dyson sphere in question is the first Star Trek Dyson sphere is completely extraneous to the overall topic here, which you must surely realize?

Also, let's be frank here: if anybody is exhibiting WP:OWNership behaviour here, it is you. You have repeatedly[1][2][3] reinstated your preferred version of the article (initially without any discussion whatsoever[4]), jumped straight to assuming bad faith when people disagree with you,[5][6][7] and even when presented with clearly-stated policy-based reasons as to why your edits have problems, you have repeatedly[8][9][10][11][12] made reference to your personal assessment that this is an important aspect of the topic (rather than making any reference to the sources making that assessment) while expressing no interest whatsoever in any kind of compromise. What you call "tagbombing" was in fact adding maintenance tags to issues[13][14] that had already been identified and fixed[15][16][17][18] before you reverted to your preferred version of the article.[19] I suggested a way forward: finding sources on the overarching topic that could be used to make this WP:PROPORTION-compliant.[20] I found those sources and added them to the article, while also copyediting for brevity to make it WP:PROPORTION-compliant.[21] You reverted that change wholesale, not even retaining the sources.[22] TompaDompa (talk) 22:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I was pinged at some point; I've skimmed the discussion and history of the main article. Keeping it short, I'd support having a short mention of the ST:TNG episode; what we in the current reversion seems fine (two sentences, one about the episode, one about Dyson's own commentary). It is dissapointing that SFE does not mention Star Trek [23], but it is also a reminder that we have to consider issues such as DUE. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

What I initially wrote was,

The USS Enterprise is trapped in a Dyson Sphere in the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode "Relics", and its novelization. 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. In an interview, Freeman Dyson said that he enjoyed the episode, although he considered the concept of such an engineering marvel to be "nonsense". [internal citations omitted]

I don't think that's excessive, considering that besides Dyson's reaction, it's all about how the Dyson sphere is portrayed, and not the plot of the episode (for comparison only, I summarized that above). That it's unique even in Star Trek (at least at the point the episode takes place), how big it is, that it's abandoned, and that the reason is because its star is unstable and dangerous all seem to go toward what a Dyson sphere might be like, and the engineering challenges one presents, which is why I included those details. If I were writing it now, I'd also add the estimate of its (internal) surface area alongside its diameter; that would add a few words.

Omitting Dyson's reaction, what remains after editing by MichaelMaggs and TompaDompa is,

In the 1992 episode "Relics" of the TV show Star Trek: The Next Generation, the USS Enterprise finds itself trapped in an abandoned Dyson Sphere.

Which is ironic, given the criticism about including "plot details". The Enterprise being trapped in the sphere is the only part of what I wrote that contains even a whiff of plot, and that's been kept, though awkwardly reworded; but the description of the Dyson sphere itself has been deleted, and that's what's most relevant to this article! P Aculeius (talk) 13:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

The question is whether this is DUE. Perhaps it would be fine in a dedicated articles on Dyson sphere in fiction, if more materials could be found to expand it. But we should base such article on content in reliable overview sources like SFE. And that one, I checked, sadly does not mention Star Trek at all :( _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Nor do, for the record, the "Dyson, Freeman (John) (1923–)" entry of Brian Stableford's Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia (2006), the "Artifical Worlds" or "Stars" entries of Gary Westfahl's Science Fiction Literature through History: An Encyclopedia (2021), the "Space Habitats" entry of David Pringle's The Ultimate Encyclopedia of Science Fiction: The Definitive Illustrated Guide (1997), the "Dyson Sphere" entry of George Mann's The Mammoth Encyclopedia of Science Fiction (2001), or the "Far-future energy" chapter of Peter Nicholls's The Science in Science Fiction (1983). That last one of course predates the Star Trek episode, but the rest don't. TompaDompa (talk) 01:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

In fact, we had an article called "Dyson spheres in popular culture" from 2006 to 2023, when it was merged here, establishing a section called "Dyson spheres in fiction". Prior to that, there was a section here called "Fiction", which directed readers to the main article "Dyson spheres in popular culture", and otherwise said,

"The Dyson sphere originated in fiction, and it is a concept that has appeared often in science fiction since then. In fictional accounts, Dyson spheres are most often depicted as a Dyson shell with the gravitational and engineering difficulties of this variant noted above largely ignored."

In the final version of its original form, "Dyson spheres in popular culture" featured a timeline of Dyson spheres occurring in fiction, followed by individual sections on novels, television and film, games, and other media. For all of that time, "Relics" was the most prominent example in the visual media, though it was always limited to about one paragraph of material.

However, in 2021 TompaDompa deleted 90% of the article's contents, claiming they were unsourced, and saying that he would rewrite the article from scratch. What was left was about two paragraphs covering the entire subject from start to finish, and that barely expanded for the next two and a half years. Every contribution from other editors during that period was immediately reverted by TompaDompa as "unsourced", the majority of them attempting to re-add "Relics", citing to the episode itself as a source, but not providing a secondary source. Since the remains of the article were only a stub, they were merged here by MichaelMaggs in 2023.

So what we have here is numerous editors over the last three years asserting that "Relics" is a particularly notable example of a Dyson sphere in fiction, but one editor keeping it out because it's "unsourced" and another because it's "trivia". And when, astonished not to find it mentioned in its original location—because that's now just a redirect—or here, I tried to provide sources, TompaDompa decided that it's not "proportionate" to its importance in literature about Dyson spheres. Which is somewhat ironic, considering that there's not much serious literature about Dyson spheres, since nobody thinks they exist or could ever be built, and that therefore they are only known to exist in fiction, where, as the former section here stated, the concept originated. P Aculeius (talk) 11:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I submit that the wrong criteria have been used to prevent the expansion of this section. The section is about "Dyson spheres in fiction", so any notable work of fiction that substantially involves a Dyson sphere (i.e. not just passing mentions) should be included. TompaDompa is reading it as, "only works of fiction discussed in literature about actual Dyson spheres", or alternately, "only works about Dyson spheres that notable secondary sources about Science Fiction in general say are notable depictions of Dyson spheres", a criterion that evidently excludes many notable works of fiction that involve Dyson spheres—such as "Relics", although it's at least mentioned in literature about Dyson spheres. And being notable, it's not too much to ask that the Dyson sphere depicted actually be described, not merely mentioned in passing. P Aculeius (talk) 12:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

numerous editors over the last three years asserting that "Relics" is a particularly notable example of a Dyson sphere in fiction – And backing that assertion up with what sources? The opinions of editors do not matter in establishing due weight, which I'm sure I don't have to tell you.

I'll be blunt: you are clearly working backwards from the assumption that "Relics" is an important aspect of this topic. You have not based that on coverage in the sources, but rather on things that make it seem important to you, personally.

TompaDompa decided that it's not "proportionate" to its importance in literature about Dyson spheres. Which is somewhat ironic, considering that there's not much serious literature [...] – I have pointed you to several sources that cover the topic of Dyson spheres in fiction. If you think my assessment of those sources is wrong, make an argument to that effect rather than dismissing it out of hand based on your personal intuition about what should be covered. If you think I have missed important literature that would change my assessment, point to that literature and I'll reassess.

any notable work of fiction that substantially involves a Dyson sphere (i.e. not just passing mentions) should be included – That would mean basing the article or section chiefly on WP:Primary sources, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. What you are describing is how TV Tropes lists are created, not Wikipedia articles. TompaDompa (talk) 17:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Dyson spheres in fiction

The above argument has become circular, repetitive, and is too long to read, as well as containing various sub-arguments about ownership and assuming bad faith that aren't actually necessary to resolve the issue. So I'm calling it a wash, and starting a new section to restate the problem as I see it, and inviting members of interested WikiProjects to weigh in. Although I'm sure that the people who were already involved in the discussion above will want to reply, I think it's also worth seeing what people who can't possibly be asked to read that mess from start to finish have to say on the subject.

What I found: I came here a few days ago expecting to find some mention of the Dyson sphere from the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode "Relics" under "Dyson spheres in fiction", or "Dyson spheres in popular culture", and was astonished not to see it mentioned at all. In the course of the above discussion, I did some research, and learned that we did have an article called "Dyson spheres in popular culture" from 2006 to 2023, in which "Relics" was given as a prominent example. Here it is at the time of its creation in 2006, as expanded in 2010, and in its final form in 2021.

From November 18 to 22, 2021, TompaDompa deleted nearly all of the listed works, lists, and timelines, reducing the article's size by approximately 90%, and leaving a bare two paragraphs, mentioning a handful of novels, and no occurrences of Dyson spheres in film, television, or other media. The explanation provided was, "Rewriting from scratch based on sources that are actually about the topic, rather than examples thereof, per MOS:POPCULT." Two years later, the article still consisted of two substantially identical paragraphs, in part because TompaDompa reverted nearly every contribution made by other editors during that time, usually within hours of the addition, and always on the grounds that the additions were "unsourced", "lacks proper sourcing", or "lacks the kind of sourcing required by MOS:POPCULT", although in each instance the work itself was clearly identified, and in many cases was itself a notable work of fiction. Six of these reversions were attempts by various editors to add, mention, or discuss "Relics".

On May 22, 2022, MichaelMaggs proposed merging what was left of "Dyson spheres in popular culture" into "Dyson sphere", explaining that, "There's no need for this to exist as a standalone article. It contains only two paragaphs, and all the information in the first already exists within Dyson sphere. The second can be moved more or less as it is into the Fiction section." This was done on February 12, 2023, following an intermittent discussion, in which only TompaDompa opposed merging. What was left of the article became the current section, "Dyson spheres in fiction". And since that time, TompaDompa and MichaelMaggs have continued to revert nearly every contribution made by other editors to this section—the majority of these being editors attempting to mention or discuss "Relics", which by my count has been deleted from both articles fifteen times since late 2021, always within a few hours of having been added.

What I did: thinking that I could resolve the impasse by providing sufficient sources, I added the following paragraph, focusing on how the Dyson sphere in "Relics" was portrayed, rather than the episode's plot, which was mostly about the Enterprise's attempts to escape the Dyson sphere, and the guest appearance of James Doohan as Montgomery Scott from the original Star Trek:

The USS Enterprise is trapped in a Dyson Sphere in the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode "Relics", and its novelization. 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. In an interview, Freeman Dyson said that he enjoyed the episode, although he considered the concept of such an engineering marvel to be "nonsense".

I cited a secondary source, the Star Trek: The Next Generation Companion, and used the "cite episode" template to cite the episode for its own contents, along with the novelization, and an interview with Freeman Dyson commenting on the episode. I later discovered that this had previously been included in "Dyson spheres in popular culture". I naïvely thought that these sources and careful focusing on the Dyson sphere itself would be sufficient for this inclusion of "Relics" to survive.

My addition was published at 8:59 on March 20; at 9:23 MichaelMaggs deleted the third sentence as "not relevant"; at 9:24 he deleted the second sentence for the same reason; at 9:26 TompaDompa tagged the citations to the episode and novel for being primary sources, as MichaelMaggs had already deleted the secondary source that I cited for the details; and at 9:28 TompaDompa deleted what remained of my contribution, asserting that it should not be there without proper sourcing, that Dyson's comment belonged on the article about the episode, and not here, and on this talk page asserting that "Relics" did not belong in this article unless in WP:PROPORTION to its importance in non-fiction literature about Dyson spheres, citing MOS:POPCULTURE, WP:CARGO, and WP:IPCV, and subsequently WP:Core content policy, WP:Policies and guidelines, WP:Consensus, WP:Neutrality, WP:MINORASPECT, WP:Verify, WP:Notability, WP:Weight, WP:ASPECT, and several others.

After numerous rounds of arguing and revising, this is what remains:

In the 1992 episode "Relics" of the TV show Star Trek: The Next Generation, the USS Enterprise finds itself trapped in an abandoned Dyson Sphere; in a 2011 interview, Dyson said that he enjoyed the episode, although he considered the sphere depicted to be "nonsense".

Which is clunky, and says nothing about how the Dyson sphere is portrayed, except for misstating what Freeman Dyson thought of it; he didn't say that the depiction of the Dyson sphere in the episode was nonsense; he appears to have been referring to the concept generally, rather than one particular realization of it. And the tone of the argument still seems to be that even this much is unjustified, because it is out of proportion to the importance of "Relics" to the subject of Dyson spheres. Apparently, although the details of the Dyson sphere in "Relics" are verifiable in both primary and secondary sources, the episode merits only a "passing mention" in non-fiction literature about Dyson spheres, or general literature about science fiction.

Issues: which brings me at last to the core questions:

1. Is "Relics" sufficiently noteworthy to be mentioned under "Dyson spheres in fiction"?
2. If so, should that mention be limited to the fact that a Dyson sphere occurs in the episode, or is the manner in which the Dyson sphere is portrayed also relevant? The answer to this question would probably apply to the other examples cited as well. The current argument seems to be that no occurrence of Dyson spheres in fiction is entitled to more discussion than occurs about it in non-fiction literature about Dyson spheres, or literature about science fiction generally.

As I said, I expect lots of opinions about this, including from the people who responded above. But I'm hoping to hear from editors who haven't previously weighed in. P Aculeius (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I daresay you have not given serious consideration to the cited policies and whatnot, or else you would have realized that you have listed multiple duplicates. I also daresay that you must not have read what I wrote particularly closely, seeing as you seem to think that I want the current mention removed (the tone of the argument still seems to be that even this much is unjustified, because it is out of proportion to the importance of "Relics" to the subject of Dyson spheres).

thinking that I could resolve the impasse by providing sufficient sources – You could have, and the great tragedy is that you still do not seem to understand what providing sufficient sources entails. Had you provided sources on the overarching topic, rather than sources on the Star Trek episode, the inclusion itself would not have been controversial (though the level of detail might have). Instead, I and ThaddeusSholto eventually tracked down decent (even if by no means great) sources for you.[24][25]

The core of the disagreement is that I think the level of coverage should be determined in accordance with WP:PROPORTION, a non-negotiable WP:Core content policy which states 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., whereas you think that the coverage in sources on the overarching topic (Dyson spheres/Dyson spheres in fiction) is not what should determine how we cover it here. TompaDompa (talk) 18:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

The Robert Wright reference is clearly a secondary reference and directly quotes the Dyson of 'Dyson sphere' on the topic of a 'Dyson sphere'. That short quote should appear in the article.

I guess the paragraph by @P Aculeius which starts "The USS Enterprise is trapped in a Dyson Sphere..." adopted a storytelling tone at odds with Wikipedia generally and that may have precipitated the subsequent actions.

1 Yes, mentioned under fiction, as seems to be the case now.

2 Yes, limited as seems to be the case now. However, the direct quote from the Wright article is clearly notable even if that causes extra space to be devoted to this particular fictional representation. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:45, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Obviusly Relics should be mentioned, and in depth. It's one of the most prominent examples of Dyson spheres in fiction and it makes no sense for the article to omit it because Star Trek is somehow not high-brow enough.

The subject is explicitly *fiction*, for crying out loud, of course we cannot demand an academic treatment of it. Tercer (talk) 18:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I suspect that you may not have read much if any of the above discussion. Obviusly Relics should be mentioned, and in depth: an opinion that contradicts WP:PROPORTION. It's one of the most prominent examples of Dyson spheres in fiction: Already dealt with in the discussion - the topic must be handled "with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject" per WP:BALANCE; the number of viewers does not determine prominence or weight. it makes no sense for the article to omit it: never suggested. because Star Trek is somehow not high-brow enough: never suggested. of course we cannot demand an academic treatment of it: never suggested. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I might also add that academic treatment of fiction-related subjects is not exactly unheard of—see e.g. Mars in fiction § Further reading. TompaDompa (talk) 21:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

You're just repeating the same points from the discussion above. WP:BLUDGEONING won't make anybody agree with you. Tercer (talk) 23:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Now that was just unfair. MichaelMaggs made one comment in the entire #Star Trek section above. TompaDompa (talk) 00:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I refuse to interact with you due to your conduct at Spanish empire. Please do not write to me again. Tercer (talk) 06:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

While someone might reasonably infer that the reason for continually deleting something from Star Trek is because the editors deleting it don't regard it as serious literature, you did write above, quoting the entirety of the paragraph I wrote (after the first sentence was cut down) with the exception of Freeman Dyson's reaction to it: "None of that adds anything to this article. It is no more than trivial Star Trek trivia that fails WP:PROPORTION" (emphasis supplied). I think that makes a strong case that the editors who keep deleting it don't regard it as worthy of mention because it comes from Star Trek. And while there is academic treatment of some science-related topics in fiction, the example given—Mars—is a much more serious topic with much more scientific and non-scientific literature about it than a hypothetical space object that few scientists believe exists or ever could exist, and which the person most associated with the concept referred to—in connection with "Relics"—as "nonsense". P Aculeius (talk) 00:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll refer you to this comment I made above for some examples of serious literature covering the topic of Dyson spheres in fiction. The literature may not be as extensive as we would like, but it does exist. TompaDompa (talk) 00:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

someone might reasonably infer that the reason for continually deleting something from Star Trek is because the editors deleting it don't regard it as serious literature — You know what, no. That's not a reasonable inference (especially not when explicit references have been repeatedly made to the inadequacy of the sourcing provided). That's just assuming bad faith (or, which is not much better, assuming that the editors in question let their personal feelings dictate content). TompaDompa (talk) 00:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps "reasonably" is too much. But it's a natural inference, because this regularly happens on Wikipedia: references to popular culture are frequently deleted not because they're unimportant or irrelevant, but because editors just don't want them to be there. The language I quoted above certainly suggests that's at least part of the issue here, and the repeated deletions with no attempt to supply sources—until ThaddeusSholto helpfully found two magazine articles mentioning "Relics"—suggests that the material was never taken seriously. P Aculeius (talk) 02:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Before ThaddeusSholto added proper sources mentioning "Relics", you know who else did? I did. After telling you I would look. But you removed them. That alone should tell you that you're wrong about what's happening and why.

Now you really should refrain from assuming others' motives. Would you believe me if I told you that for me, it all comes down to WP:PROPORTION? Could you entertain the possibility that I have in fact truly meant what I have been telling you all along? Is it conceivable to you that editors might approach a topic like this dispassionately, without involving their personal feelings on the matter—or even not having any strong feelings about it one way or the other? TompaDompa (talk) 05:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you did add two sources with passing mentions of the episode, while simultaneously deleting a secondary source that actually discussed the episode. And that was several hours after you deleted what remained of the paragraph, following MichaelMaggs having deleted half of it minutes earlier, and after you tagbombed it after being reverted. And some ten separate comments into the above argument. But four passing mentions of something aren't great sourcing, since they can't be used to verify anything other than its existence; and a good part of why this argument keeps going is your insistence that any details about the Dyson sphere aren't proportionate and can't be sourced to the actual episode, while you also deleted the secondary source that could have been used to verify them. So I don't see why I should be thanking you for doing that, when in reality you're waging an endless war to keep what seems like perfectly reasonable material out of the article. P Aculeius (talk) 15:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

The source you're referring to that I removed is Star Trek: The Next Generation Companion; I hope I don't have to explain the difference in kind between that source and the others to you. And if you would characterize the coverage of "Relics" in the sources about the actual topic here as passing mentions, how on Earth can you think increased coverage would be in WP:PROPORTION to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject? TompaDompa (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Since the topic is "Dyson spheres in fiction", the material only needs to be proportionate to its importance relative to other Dyson spheres in fiction. The scope of the topic didn't change merely because "Dyson spheres in popular culture" was merged here. And you can't prevent the expansion of one item to a size that would render it useful to readers simply by leaving all of the other items undeveloped. Other editors are just as entitled to decide what they think is proportionate to the importance of an item within its topic as you are.

And you simply do not understand what verifiability is. A primary source is valid for its own contents, not invalid because articles should cite secondary sources. Secondary sources are valid for what they say about primary sources. Hamlet is a perfectly valid source for what occurs or is said in the play. A book about Shakespeare's plays is perfectly valid as a source verifying what occurs or is said in the play. Your rationale seems to be, "you cannot cite a work for its own contents, even if anyone who views it can verify what is cited to it. A secondary source about the thing cited cannot be used to verify it. You cannot include any details unless they are mentioned in sources that are not at all concerned with them."

If the article about Danish monarchs contains a section about "Danish monarchs in fiction", it would be absurd to limit discussion of Hamlet to "a Danish monarch appears in Shakespeare's play Hamlet. Josef Frederiksen, author of The Danish Monarchy through the Ages, said in an interview, 'I've watched Hamlet. It's a great piece of drama. Of course it's utter nonsense—no such events ever occurred!'" and to give as your reason for excluding any details about Hamlet, "academic sources about the Danish monarchy only have passing mentions of Hamlet. Anything else is not proportionate to its importance to the subject, and only belongs in the article about Hamlet. It does not belong under 'Danish monarchs in fiction'." Yet this is your argument. P Aculeius (talk) 17:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I understand that primary sources can be used for WP:Verifying things; I said as much days ago. Do you understand that they do not count towards establishing WP:Weight or WP:Notability? Regardless of whether we take the topic of the article (Dyson spheres) or section (Dyson spheres in fiction) into consideration here, we still need to abide by WP:PROPORTION. You don't have to like that policy, but it behooves you to abide by it.

I would suggest you read the essay WP:IPCV, in particular the part that says Although some references may be plainly verified by primary sources, this does not demonstrate the significance of the reference. [...] If a cultural reference is genuinely significant it should be possible to find a reliable secondary source that supports that judgment. [...] Absence of these secondary sources should be seen as a sign of limited significance, not an invitation to draw inference from primary sources. You may also want to familiarize yourself with MOS:POPCULT. TompaDompa (talk) 18:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

...this regularly happens on Wikipedia: references to popular culture are frequently deleted not because they're unimportant or irrelevant, but because editors just don't want them to be there. I don't deny that that happens on Wikipedia; but that's most emphatically not the case here. All of the resistance to your desire to add in-universe Star Trek plot details is policy and guideline based. Without reliable secondary sources those details can fairly be classed as trivia (ie not suitable for the encyclopedia), not because I or anyone else "don't like them" but because policy and guideline tell us they are not suitable for the encyclopedia. To be honest I feel this has been explained to you more than enough times. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

A description of the Dyson sphere is not a "plot detail"; the description is not important to the plot, and it is not necessary to describe what happens to the characters or how the plot is resolved in order to describe the Dyson sphere. But just saying that "Dyson spheres occur in the following literature" is not nearly as helpful to readers as describing how Dyson spheres are actually portrayed in that literature:

How big are they? How much habitable space do they provide, what kind of star do they orbit, are they unique or are there many of them, who built them, who inhabits them, and what happens to the Dyson spheres? These are the kinds of things that a genuinely useful treatment of any occurrence in fiction would provide. Of course not all of these questions can be answered for each instance, and there may be other relevant details. These matters go toward how realistically or implausibly Dyson spheres are portrayed in fiction, what their purpose might be, and soforth.

Instances with few or no details might indeed constitute the stereotypical "big dumb object" mentioned in this section; more detailed examples do not, and so the descriptions of Dyson spheres occurring in fiction also go toward justifying or refuting this trope in various instances. Such things are not "trivial trivia"; they are the essentials of a section such as "Dyson spheres in fiction". P Aculeius (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

When based on what reliable secondary sources report, agreed. The difference between us is that you want to include all that detail based only on the TV show, which policy and guidelines don't allow. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

A work of fiction is perfectly valid as a source for its own contents. You do not need a secondary source simply to relate, "character A said 'B'," or "Tarzan is orphaned as an infant and raised by apes." But knowing that primary sources used for any purposes are frowned upon, and that anything based on them is likely to be deleted, I went out of my way to cite a secondary source for the details. You deleted it along with those details, because you said they were not relevant. Then when I restored them, TompaDompa deleted the secondary source again, tagged the remaining parts for being cited to the episode and novel, deleted the reference to the novel along with its citation, and then deleted everything that remained, because the only citation that remained after deleting the secondary source was a primary source—except for the interview, which he also deleted, stating that it belonged in another article, not here. P Aculeius (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think rehashing the same argument with these two editors will ever get you anywhere. You've already got two independent opinions on the dispute, mine and Johnjbarton's, and both were on your side. Just restore the content and be done with it. Tercer (talk) 18:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

The current revision of the article gives the ST:TNG episode due weight. Readers with interest in learning more can follow the link to the article about the episode. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 00:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

My 2 cents is that Relics uses the Dyson sphere as a mere plot device. It was needed to:

1. Keep the Enterprise away while Scotty and Geordi find their own solution. Numerous other episodes used some form of sticky space cloud or broken engines for the same purpose.
2. Provide some threat to the crew via the closed doorway and exploding sun. Again, plenty of other ways to do this, exploding suns seeming to be a common theme.

The story itself doesn't really explore the sphere, its implications or anything that is unique about the sphere. It doesn't look at anything like what life inside a sphere would have been - eg always looking inwards and not outwards, lack of awareness of the rest of the universe (See For the World Is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky), practically limitless energy, practically limitless inhabitable area, diversity due to so much inhabitable area, possible divisions of the population, possible reasons for dying out. It is one of my favourite TNG stories due to exploring Scotty being a relic of a bygone era, wallowing in old memories but still being useful/relevant to the youngsters - just like older people in today's society. But the Dyson sphere is still very much just a plot device. A very short paragraph is all it needs.  Stepho  talk  00:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Reference list
References