Talk:Aldebaran in fiction

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was no consensus to merge. —AldeBaer (c) 02:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggest merging this into the main article. Seeing e.g. as this article doesn't cite any sources, the subject matter of this article doesn't seem fit for an article of its own. —AldeBaer 15:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

In addition to that, I'd like to raise the issue of the Stars in astrology article, which imho should likewise be merged into the respective main articles. —AldeBaer 15:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong oppose, for the following reasons:

1. Aldebaran is primarily an article about the real star and data collected regarding it from observation. Combining it with a large amount of fictional material would overweight the article and make it difficult to use for both those who are interested in the science (who would have to scroll through a lot of fiction before they could get to, e.g., references) or for people who are interested in the fiction (who would not only have to scroll through the science, but would also be deprived of the available links to similar articles about stars in fiction, as the proposal necessarily involves the destruction of the entire "Stars in fiction" hierarchy).
2. Furthermore, lists of fictional citations are cruft-magnets, and while I'm personally happy to keep them clean, I can't expect people whose primary interests are in astronomical science to feel the same way. If you're an editor whose business is making sure that the article is scientifically accurate, you're not going to be happy about having to delete five times a month the contribution of a fanatical gamer who thinks that it's of the utmost importance to tell the world that "Al de Baran" (usually misspelled) is a city in Ragnarok Online.
3. If the entries are deficient from the point of view of citation, then slapping them together with an article of interest to a completely different set of people is not going to help a bit. However, WP does not mandate particular forms of citation, and for most of these works, providing title, author, date of publication, and type of fictional work is sufficient. They could be presented with more formal consistency, but that's a matter of style and not of content.
4. How stars are viewed in astrology is yet another matter, of interest to astrologers and not usually to either astronomers or science fiction fans. It's probably better if that information is kept coherent within its own article instead of spread across dozens of different articles.
5. If Aldebaran in fiction were to be merged anywhere for any reason, it should be, not with the Aldebaran science article, but with Stars and planetary systems in fiction, which may be considered its parent article; Aldebaran in fiction being basically a grown up and podded-off subsection of the same.

RandomCritic 16:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Scrolling to sections is never necessary, that's what the WP:TOC is for. The "hierarchy" will not be "destroyed" at all: As you may not be aware, Category:Stars in fiction already exists.

RC Yes, it does exist. But if you get rid of "Aldebaran in fiction", and all of the other (Star name) in fiction articles, then it won't.

AB Let's simply add all the relevant star articles to the category after the "big merging", what's the problem? Wrt to "large amount of fictional material": It's not that much material (let alone sufficient subject matter to write a coherent article, in most cases) and it's directly related to the astronomical knowledge about the existence of those stars.

2. It's better to have this article completely unreferenced because such references would be a "cruft-magnet"? To me that sounds like pleading for AfD. Please clarify. Also, if you're happy with cleaning up the (non-existent...) references in this article, what's the difficulty in keeping them clean in another article?

RC I believe I pointed out that it's not "completely unreferenced". That is your characterization. And you misunderstand what I mean by "cruft-magnet", although I gave you a perfectly suitable example. I mean that such lists tend to attract people who want to put things into the list (just because it is a list) which violate the criteria for inclusion. This is, frankly, a pain in the rear, and it's something that people who are keeping up scientific articles shouldn't have to deal with. It has nothing to do with the quality of the information already in the article.

AB Let's please stay civil. We're simply having a discussion and we're obviously sitting on opposite sides of the fence on several aspects. Let's also not waste each others' time. If you're not willing to work out any kind of compromise, please tell me so outright. Anyway, this article features no references, fact. And I didn't understand the point you're trying to make - and I still don't: You said you have no problem cleaning up the "(Star name) in fiction" articles, and my reaction was to ask myself and you what the problem is in simply watchlisting the main star articles instead and watch the section and its references there. So?

You're simply refusing to consider the consequences for the usual editors of those articles. And if there's any breach of civility, it's certainly not on this side.

3. It may give more editors the chance to review the value and validity of the included information. Also, please read Wikipedia:Content forking.

RC This isn't "content forking"; it's the perfectly typical and normal removal of a large section into it's own article. Second, the value and validity of the information can be assessed by those who are familiar with the fictional material it contains, a group which is only going to by chance overlap with people who are interested in the scientific data about Aldebaran.

AB Erm... "the perfectly typical and normal removal of a large section into it's own article" is precisely what content forking is. You probably meant "it's not POV forking", to which I agree. It's "perfectly typical content forking" - the usefulness of which I doubt, in this case. Wrt to your second point: The value of the information can and will always be assessed by anyone who edits Wikipedia, not by a group of article owners. As a new and special rebuttal regarding the point of "astronomical editors shouldn't be bothered with fan-cruft" you're trying to make: Embedding fictional occurrences into sections in the main articles will help, I'm convinced, to discourage the addition of cruft. And there are more users watching one and the same page, which is thus easier to maintain with more eyes scrutinising each edit.

You do not understand what a content fork is, and more importantly, what it is not. Please read Wikipedia:Content_forking#Article_spinouts_-_.22Summary_style.22_articles.

4. Again, the question appears to be whether this content fork is valid under WP:Content forking. Note that I've posted a question to the talk page there to give other editors a chance to informally provide us with some more input (note that we should avoid taking this discussion over there, so I've tried to formulate the question in a neutral manner).

RC You do not understand what a content fork is.

AB See above.

5. Saying that this article is "grown-up" somewhat stretches the definition.

RC Your opinion. If you wish to help improve the article, please go ahead and start editing. However, if you simply copy the information into the Aldebaran article, I will point out that you will (1) get a lot of editors mad, (2) have done absolutely nothing to improve the article.

AB Yes, my opinion. As opposed to your opinion that this article is "grown up". The difference is, my opinion is based on what WP:MOS, WP:RS and WP:OR say. If you know of more editors who may be interested in this, by all means, please ask them to join the discussion.

You'll get more than enough input if you try to implement your proposed merge, though at present I doubt there is going to be much interest as you haven't actually created a real problem yet. As for "grown up", you are putting your own construction on my words, which has little to do with my actual comment -- a trivial point that I don't intend to bother with.

—AldeBaer 18:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

RandomCritic 18:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

—AldeBaer 21:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.