This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to
Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
I'm trying to clean up the page
Moon, and one of weak points is the section "Human understanding of the Moon". I think this section deserves it own subsection "The Moon in art and literature", and I am curious if anyone here would be willing to write a few paragraphs summarizing this?
Lunokhod10:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)reply
Worth adding Thundarr the Barbarian to animation list?
in the opening credits to the animated series, there is a brief mention and visual of the partial destruction of the Earth and the Moon. We see the moon split in two... is it worth adding to the list?
I would propose to sort the info by century / decade, and then (optionally) by the genre. It will better illustrate how the Moon-related fiction has evolved with the growing scientific understanding of the Moon --
Thereisnous (
talk)
20:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)reply
See
fr:Discussion:Octave Béliard. This concerns a claim made in academic work
here/
mirror that "According to Wikipedia, Octave Béliard provided an early reference to these efforts with his 1910 ‘La journée d’un parisen au XXIème siècle’, where he invents a terraformed moon transformed into ‘a sanctuary for endangered species’." which would be relevant to mention here - but this needs to be verified with a soruce that doesn't attribute Wikipedia (see
WP:CITOGENESIS). Right now we are having hard time figuring out where on Wikipedia this claim was made (the article does not say...), and I have trouble verifying the very fact too, up to an including whether
fr:Octave Béliard wrote such a work. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here02:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Yeah, probably. I intend to expand this article significantly using a few sources I have found in the years since I brought it to
WP:Good article status and hopefully get it to
WP:Featured article standards eventually, but I have a few other articles I want to work on first, so it may be quite a while until I get around to it. I expect the wordcount to perhaps double or even more, so it seems likely that the structure will have to be adjusted as well. As a result, I'm a bit reluctant to expand the article piecemeal without an overarching structure or plan since that might end up making the later expansion more of a hassle than it needs to be.
TompaDompa (
talk)
20:49, 10 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Thanks, yes, your pages have been well accepted and nicely written, I guess it's personal opinion as to which format works best at what point. In this case having the list article, which I'd forgotten about, seems a complimentary match to this prose article. I've linked
List of appearances of the Moon in fiction to the words "appearances in fiction" in the lead which, although the link should be kept in See also, considering the connection maybe could additionally be presented as a hatnote.
Randy Kryn (
talk)
04:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Have you changed your mind about the prose articles? You lamented
Mars in fiction being in a prose format
as recently as June. You are obvioulsy allowed to prefer a list format, but I think the track record for prose vs. list format for these articles speaks for itself and is rather difficult to argue with. The fact that you had forgotten about
List of appearances of the Moon in fiction despite
having edited the article multiple times last year and it being linked in the "See also" section of this article perhaps says something about how successful that list has been. It is, to be frank, a misguided and abortive attempt at covering in a list format a topic which does not lend itself to it in an encyclopaedia like this.
TompaDompa (
talk)
09:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Your articles have been well received so on that there is no disagreement. They are good overviews yet lack the quicker search capability of a list. While leaving my recent comment I remembered the list of appearances but thought that it was for Mars and not the Moon, so based my comments on that. Thanks for pointing it out again, which makes it easier for me to view this list for what it is and isn't - they compliment each other although the list needs the addition of years at some points. That you view the list as a "misguided and abortive attempt..." points to personal preference again, and many other lists (that some people prefer) have been drastically changed in the last couple years, even if the results deserve feature and good article status. That you are good at what you do doesn't mean that other ways of presenting the information don't work, which is why the pairing on this Moon topic seems the best approach for similar pages.
Randy Kryn (
talk)
11:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I call it a misguided and abortive attempt not because I dislike the format but because (1) it was explicitly intended to be improved from the state it was created in but hasn't, and (2) it doesn't actually do what a proper list on the topic would do. It's not a proper navigational list or a proper informational list. It's far from exhaustive. It has no proper
WP:LISTCRITERIA. It relies almost exclusively on primary sources (which is the charitable interpretation – the alternative is that it's
WP:Original research) in violation of
WP:PRIMARY. Maybe it would have complemented the prose article if it had been constructed properly, but right now (and all since its creation) it's a
TV Tropes-style mess. Maybe it's possible to create a quality list article on the topic, but nobody has done so as yet.
TompaDompa (
talk)
16:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC)reply