Talk:Earth in science fiction

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merge [[Old Earth (Dune)]] into this page. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Minor Edit 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removed text from Star Wars section 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wing Commander 

message: 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)
replies: text: My thanks. --Darthmix 20:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Planet of the Apes?

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Earth RDM.png

message: 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)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: 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)
thread_title:  This article is without value 

message: @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): , , . As for , 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)
replies: text: I know that's where it's from, but I rather agree with ' assessment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth in science fiction (2nd nomination):  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: @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)
replies: text: 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 . 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)
thread_title:  Off topic or useful context? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Earthican 

message: 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  until a consensus is reached.  QuicoleJR (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Old Earth (Dune)]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Rock Diver]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: Indeed. Also ping @TompaDompa Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Reverted page move

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[Travel to the Earth's center]]