# Talk:Earth in science fiction

"The only surviving Earthman, Arthur Dent ...".  Trillian (who was also a human) also survived....  If the meaning is that Arthur Dent is the only earth male human to survive I think it should be made more clear.
Karih 22:56, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

As Old Earth (Dune) is a relatively small page, I think it would be better placed here. Philip Stevens 09:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Just made some minor edits to the Star Wars Section ( made ET link directly to the alien dude) Infantrymarine25 3:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the following paragraphs from the Star Wars section.

However, with E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial's race being included in Star Wars: The Phantom Menace, the idea that Earth is somehow reachable (at least in the future of Star Wars tech) is present.
And then there is the well-known quote from Han Solo: "You've never heard of the Millennium Falcon? It's the ship that made the Kessel run in less than twelve parsecs." A parsec is defined to be the distance from which the Earth and Sun appear to be separated from one another by 1 second of an arc. Therefore, since a parsec is a unit of measurement derived from Earth, the Star Wars universe must currently have or once had a knowledge of Earth.
Why?

It's original research, first of all.
Check the IMDb Trivia page for Phantom Menace: the appearance of an E.T.-looking alien in the Galactic Senate chamber is generally regarded as an "in-joke".  It does not mean that Star Wars and E.T. take place in the same universe, any more than the musical keypad in Moonraker proves that James Bond lives in the same universe as Close Encounters of the Third Kind.
The "parsec" line is one of the most, if not the most discussed goofs in Star Wars. Solo uses "parsec" as a unit of time, which it isn't.  All the justifications which fans have proposed in later years (the Falcon can make really tight corners, etc.) are beside the point.  Why should we make wild extrapolations about a movie's world based upon a goof?
Supposing that there were a reason to measure a ship's proficiency at the Kessel Run using a unit of distance, the people in the Star Wars galaxy would have their own units to use.  A "light year" in the Republic or the Empire would be, at a guess, the distance light travels in the time it takes Coruscant to go around its own sun.  Likewise, a "parsec" would be the distance at which a star would show a parallax of one arc-second, as seen from opposite sides of Coruscant's orbit.  No Earth necessary.  (Sure, I just made that up, but it's no more made-up than the text I took out of the article, and it's just as good reasoning.)
Anville 15:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the description of Earth in Hitchhikers meant to be "Mostly harmless" instead of just "Harmless"?
Gregwmay 08:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It gets changed one way or the other partway through the series.  I think it becomes "Mostly Harmless" later on, and is then updated once again with all the information Ford Prefect submit
== ted during his stay on Earth, shortly before all versions of Earth are destroyed, rendering the entry useless.--Raguleader 00:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

A previous editor removed a link in my Wing Commander edit.  The original link went to a disambiguation page, I replaced the link with a link to the Wing Commander (Computer Game) entry.--Raguleader 00:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Who deleted the Half-Life section? Why did this seem extraneous, or are they simply not a fan or something? If Buck Rogers is culturally signifcant enough to warrant it's own section, why would one of the most popular video game series of all time not be?
More to the point, Half-Life portrays a fictional Earth in a pretty different manner to the other Science Fiction franchises noted in this article.

Seems to me the treatment/fate of earth in the PotA movies is significant enough to be discussed here. Perhaps someone who has better knowledge of that series than me could add it? If not I'll take a crack at it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darthmix (talk • contribs) 

Done. MrZaiustalk 15:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
My thanks. --Darthmix 20:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Earth RDM.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 05:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

This article appears to contain many summaries of and conclusions drawn from various works of fiction, which I believe qualify as original research. It should be cleaned up to cite reliable sources. Hastyreader (talk) 23:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

This article is pretty useless.  It is nothing more than summaries of Earth from an odd selection of various pieces of science fiction.  Without a through line that connects this disparity information, it is not an article useful as a piece of reference.
I rather doubt there’s any real interest in improving this article while retaining the premise of describing Earth from various pieces of fiction.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.203.135.66 (talk) 17:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC) 

It strikes me that the article in its re-write needs structure. That will allow the addition of secondary sources that fit into each subtopic, as well as cited examples. I also suspect it would help us to unearth secondary sources that do have more general things to say about Earth in science fiction. Some of the themes that come out of the Encyclopedia entries:

The shape of the Earth (Hollow, flat, inc influence from mythology)
The role of the Earth in a developed galaxy (homeworld of an empire vs cosmic insignificance)
Ecological warnings inc the Earth as a living organism, future fate of the Earth.
Any thoughts? OsFish (talk) 05:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Actually, there are a lot of pages that deal with these subgenres, many of which we're already linking to on this page. It would seem reasonable to use these pages for structure so long as there are secondary/tertiary sources that mention them under the general idea of Earth in science fiction. Those sources may be within those pages.
* Subterranean fiction or Hollow Earth
* Alien invasion, Galactic empire, although that doesn't feature a specific section on Earth at the moment.
* Dying Earth genre,  Apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction, climate fiction
OsFish (talk) 05:24, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
@OsFish Check out the article, newly expanded based on two sources I found.
Things that seem to be missing IMHO in those overviews:
rescuing the Earth theme (saving it from an asteroid, Category:Impact event novels)
the theme of the world government / Earth united
more on alternate history, particularly the concept of unknown history (ex. Conan's Hyborian Age, in other words, Mythopoeia)
Can't really add it without sources, as it would be ORish.
I can also imagine a list of the relatively rare works "about Earth", but we have to avoid this becoming a fancruft list of trivia.
The old version of this article is here, maybe a few examples would be reusable, but we need to avoid OR/SYNTH or turning this into a long list of examples; the ones used in the text are from sourced overviews (but I'll admit I added a few more that where not in the two big overviews, each with a reliable reference that it discusses a given theme, but where to stop and how to format the growing lists is an issue.). The list of examples, mostly in parenthesis, already look a bit cluttery and I do wonder about splitting them into footnotes which could improve readability. The big issue is "a few examples are good, but too many are not good". Where to draw the line? At mininumum, all examples need secondary references, obviously... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
What you've done so far is great - thanks! I think that if there is a Wiki page on a subgenre, it's very probably not OR to take that up as a subgenre given the other page. A general rule that if a work has been mentioned in secondary sources as an example, it can be included, should be enough to prevent fancruft. Whether a list forms or not depends on how many works qualify according to that criterion. I'm sorry I haven't had time to pay more attention to this page. I'll see if I do in the coming weeks. OsFish (talk) 14:44, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
I think the article is already too heavy on examples. I am of the opinion that unless we're elaborating on the details of individual examples, no concept should have more than two examples. At present, we have four examples of a flat Earth, five examples of a hollow Earth, seven examples of moving the Earth from its orbit, and five examples of accidental climate change. We're supposed to be summarizing, not enumerating. Using footnotes would perhaps ameliorate this issue somewhat by increasing the readability of the prose text, but I don't think that's the right way to go about it. TompaDompa (talk) 04:34, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
@TompaDompa Thank you for doing this, but some resulting footnotes are unreferenced. All examples used in my rewrite came from cited sources. Can you be so kind and to add the references there? The ones at the end of each sentence (in the older version) should cover the examples cited. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:00, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
I mean, the sources are still there at the end of the sentences. I mainly focused on getting it done fairly quickly to improve readability while the article was linked on the WP:Main Page. I thought it rather disruptive, frankly, to re-add the examples while the article was featured on the main page without engaging in the existing talk page discussion on the topic, but presumably they didn't notice the discussion. My preference would still be to remove the examples altogether. TompaDompa (talk) 04:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
@TompaDompa I think the examples are obviously helpful as illustrating the concepts discussed. The only problem is the tendency of people to keep adding more and more. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't think merely listing examples is all that helpful. Ideally, the examples should be briefly described and integrated in the main prose rather than being confined to parentheticals or footnotes. The sentences In Clifford D. Simak's Cemetery World (1973) Earth is a planet-size cemetery and in Gordon R. Dickson's Call Him Lord (1966), a museum. and Bridging these ideas, and treating Earth as a semi-biological or even sentient entity, are classic works like Arthur Conan Doyle's When the World Screamed (1928) and Jack Williamson's Born of the Sun (1934). are examples of how this can be done. We should strive to write about examples in such a way that we cannot simply turn them into footnotes or add several additional examples without further context. TompaDompa (talk) 05:06, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Ping User:FormalDude regarding your GAN comment about some possible expansion and sources - this is relevant to the discussion above (the first part, second veers into some structural issues). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

The article opens with the uncited assertion, "An overwhelming majority of fiction is set on or features the Earth. This also holds true of science fiction, despite perceptions to the contrary."  This sounds less like an encyclopaedia article and more like a position paper--or worse, a school report.  However, it would be hard to correct this article when the most obvious thing to do is delete it. Count Robert of Paris (talk) 18:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@Count Robert of Paris: It's not uncited. The source is at the end of the paragraph. "[D]espite perceptions that science fiction is largely a literature of space travel, most of its stories occur on Earth". TompaDompa (talk) 18:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough.  So many "facts" are in that paragraph, it had not occurred to me that the citation at the very end sufficed for all of them.  That being said, and without getting into how scholarly this source is or is not, what the cited source says is merely, "Moreover, despite the perceptions that science fiction is largely a literature of space travel, most of its stories occur on Earth as well," essentially the same vague and unsubstantiated statement as begins this article.  How many is "most"?  How would you even make that determination, without knowing the total number of science fiction works and the total number that take place on Earth?  This does not sound at all falsifiable or encyclopaedic.  Just because someone paraphrases an opinion he or she finds in a book does not mean it is not just an opinion.  That's why we need to cite sources: to know whether the source is any good.  Count Robert of Paris (talk) 19:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
@Count Robert of Paris While I am very fond of referencing every sentence, it is ok to just add references at the end of a paragraph in some cases, particularly in WP:LEAD. In fact, our Manual of Style encourages us to remove all references from the lead unless there is content that can be controversial - lead should simply summarize the body of the article. And here, the sentence you mention is just a reformulation of "In general, the vast majority of fiction, including science fiction, takes place on Earth." (pages 226 and 228).
As for the source itself, I actually wrote an article about it, since for whatever reason it did get quite a few scholarly reviews: The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy.
As for the source, it reliable and relevant, hence it is fine to summarize it. It would be lovely to be able to provide precise numbers, but no reliable source seems to have those, so a generalization from an expert on this (contributor to the cited reliable source) is fine. (Also, this claim is quite correct per simple common sense, and in the end, we also have the WP:BLUESKY to consider). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:10, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
How can something be both "quite correct per simple common sense" (your assertion) and "true...despite perceptions to the contrary," as per the article and source?  In essence, you are saying it does not need substantiating because it is so obvious, while the article and source allege it to be true although it appears not to be.  I would go even further.  I would say the statement that "An overwhelming majority of fiction is set on or features the Earth. This also holds true of science fiction, despite perceptions to the contrary" is saying it is not per simple common sense--and ought to be backed up with a little more than a simple assertion.  I don't see where our "source" ever backs this up in any way himself.  What if this same source had said the moon is made of green cheese?  Could the article on the Moon be revised to include its green cheese origins, and cite this author's bare assertion?  This mishandling of source and citation is precisely why Wikipedia is often not viewed as reliable.  Count Robert of Paris (talk) 13:43, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. We don't demand that our sources prove every assertion that they make. There are two assertions here: that most science fiction takes place on Earth and that there are perceptions that science fiction mostly takes place in space. The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy is a WP:Reliable source both when it comes to general statements about science fiction as a whole and when it comes to public perceptions of science fiction. Neither assertion is WP:EXTRAORDINARY, so the current sourcing is quite sufficient.If the same source had said that the moon is made out of cheese, we would not include that; the chemical composition of the Moon is not within the source's accepted area of expertise so the source is not reliable for that assertion, that would be an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary sources (plural), and that claim is contradicted by the WP:BESTSOURCES on the topic. TompaDompa (talk) 15:52, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
@Count Robert of Paris "Wikipedia is often not viewed as reliable". Are you confusing 2000s with 2020s? Wikipedia has been generally seen as reliable, not just by the public, but by the scholars, since at least early 2010s. You can read more about this on reliability of Wikipedia, or if you prefer peer-reviewed works, check out recent articles by me and others in this special issue. Or read the literature cited there. With all due respect, your claim reminds me of some old professor who saw Wikipedia 20 years ago, told his students not to use it, and didn't notice the times have changed. They did. For the last 10 years Wikipedia has been considered an ally to academia, not a foe. Please move on with the times :) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@TompaDompa: I am not sure if those removals are necessary; I didn't invent this - those were seen as relevant context in the cited works (mostly encyclopedias of sf): [1], [2], [3]. As for [4], well, it shows subterranean Earth? We have room for the picture, unless you found something better? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I know that's where it's from, but I rather agree with Daranios' assessment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth in science fiction (2nd nomination): About half of that contains historical facts and old examples where there is no clear disctinction between science fiction and philosophical speculation about scientific issues. The other half fits to our topic. As for the image, I think that if we are to have an image to illustrate the concept of Hollow Earth in science fiction, it should be clear at a glance that's what it is, and I don't really think that File:Voyages_Extraordinaires_frontispiece.jpg does that particularly well (most of the image is of completely different stories by Jules Verne). I would be more inclined to use an illustration of the hollow Earth in The Goddess of Atvatabar, e.g. File:Map_of_the_Interior_World.png. TompaDompa (talk) 05:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
I am fine with the alt image, but I think the article is not too long and that the removed content is mostly relevant. I'll ping User:Daranios to hear what they think. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
I think chaning the image is a good idea, the Atvatabar one seems conceptually clearer. As for the removed parts, I agree with Piotrus here that they are relevant: As a reader of Wikipedia I personally would love to get such background information how far back these ideas go. More generally, I think they provide historical context. More as an aside, they may not have been intended to be science fiction. But they were not science in the modern sense, i.e. not using the scientific method I think, either. Rather they were philosophical speculations about scientific topics, and therefore have a fictional character to them. That's my 2 cents on that. Daranios (talk) 11:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
In that case, I think we have to rephrase those parts to actually be about Earth in science fiction. There's a difference between primarily writing about the history of a concept while additionally noting that it has been used in science fiction and primarily writing about the concept's use in science fiction while additionally noting its history, and we should always use the latter framing in this article. TompaDompa (talk) 05:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
@TompaDompa Go for it - just please don't remove informational content. Rephrasing is good, removing useful/relevant facts should be avoided. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:29, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
I took a stab at rewriting it. That did involve removing some background information, though I also added other background information which seemed more pertinent. I replaced footnotes with examples integrated in the prose with brief descriptions, as I suggested doing at #Suggestions for structure. I think this is rather an important issue for the article; this is a WP:Good article nominee, and WP:Good article criterion 3b says that a good article stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. Poorly-integrated examples and quasi-relevant background information are both examples of not staying focused on the topic. If I were reviewing this article for WP:Good article status, I would not consider it compliant with criterion 3b. TompaDompa (talk) 21:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

This word seems to have been invented in Futurama. It's not in Brave new words  the Oxford dictionary of science fiction by Jeff Prucher, and I can't find any reliable source confirming it is real - although it is on Futurama fan wiki: https://theinfosphere.org/Earthican_people , and I guess the NBC episode summary may be reliable-ish (https://www.nbc.com/futurama/video/three-hundred-big-boys/3695718 "When each Earthican receives a $300 government refund, the Planet Express crew members pursue their respective dreams and desires.")
That said, the second is WP:PRIMARYish, so I am not sure if this word deserves an entry in our list of synonyms of Earthling? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:14, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Earth in science fiction/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: FormalDude (talk · contribs) 07:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
I've begun reviewing the article and will post my initial comments here. ––FormalDude  talk 07:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
No problems here at all.
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
The lead section could be potentially 1-3 sentences longer, or have another paragraph added.
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 
Referencing is sublime, FA quality.
B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 
Very well sourced. All sources are reliable and significant, and thoroughly attributed.
C. It contains no original research: 
All content is properly souced and the referencing makes it easy to verify.
D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 
Easy pass.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 
I believe there is another notable theme that is not covered, which would be futuristic versions of Earth. This is partially covered by the two latter subsections of the "Themes" section, but I believe another subsection should be added covering (often dystopic) future Earths in science fiction. I can provide sources to assist with this if needed.
As I continued reviewing the article, I thought more about this, and figured it could go either way.  I'll leave it to the nominator to decide if this is significant enough for it's own subsection. Other than that, I think the article is well-focused and provides relevant detail in all the right places.
B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 
I've watched this page for a while, and it has been one of the best article turnarounds I've seen to date, especially in this aspect.
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 
No major disputes, page has been generally stable for quite a while.
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
I'd think something like File:A Scorched and Burnt Future Earth.jpg might be better for the lead image, but other than that, looks great!
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
This is definitely a Good Article, and I was happy to review this nomination. Thank you for the clear effort you've put into making this article,  @Piotrus!
I've watchlisted this but please ping me when the review is done so that I don't miss it in my gigantic watchlist feed. TIA. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

The redirect Old Earth (Dune) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 21 § Old Earth (Dune) until a consensus is reached.  QuicoleJR (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Any thoughts on how to work that one (my newest article) in? Seems related @TompaDompa Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:52, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@Real4jyy: This page's title is not analogous to the examples you gave (such as Mars in fiction) for the simple reason that any fiction set on Mars is ipso facto sci-fi/fantasy, making the modifier redundant. The vast majority of fiction set on Earth, however, is not science fiction, which is why this article exists: to discuss the portrayal of Earth specifically in works of sci-fi, in which Earth may no longer be the only celestial body inhabited by humans. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. Also ping @TompaDompa Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. The main debatable case is Moon in science fiction, which has that title as a result of its 2021 GAN. I intend to work on it further at some point in the future (I have since found additional sources and—if I may say so myself—become a lot better at writing these kinds of articles), and I may end up moving it back to the title Moon in fiction. TompaDompa (talk) 03:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I think this neees its own subsection (I am not sure how we missed this article while getting this to GA a while back...). @TompaDompa Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Noted. I'm a bit caught up in some other stuff at the moment, but I intend to take a look at this article at some point in the future to see if/how it can be improved as part of my effort working on our articles on the Solar System in (science) fiction. TompaDompa (talk) 03:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)