Talk:The empire on which the sun never sets

message: On this talk page, I see recurring references to the fact that this article is about the phrase "the empire on which the sun never sets", not about the geography of various empires and whether, astronomically, they literally had daylight at some point in their jurisdiction 24/7/365.
That's fine, but it seems that there really is interest in which countries did control territories so extensive worldwide that the sun never set there. This "What if" piece (cited elsewhere on this page) illustrates such interest. If we can't have the geographic/astronomical explanation in this article as to which empires the sun didn't set on (and when they lost territory such that the sun eventually did set on them), then we ought to cover that in some other article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an encyclopedia, not an indiscrimate collection of information or trivia. If an issue is sufficiently notable and covered by reliable sources then it should have a place, otherwise not. And in any case, in this instance it would be contentious. E.g. The Spanish Empire claimed all the oceans and also territory they hadn't even discovered - clearly bollocks - but there would be some who'd argue for it to be included. Wiki-Ed (talk) 18:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  So where does the sun never set? And what article should cover that topic? 

message: This page was getting a bit long, so I have archived most of it. However I ran into a problem at Talk:The empire on which the sun never sets/Archive 1#The British empire and the American Empire - the page refused to save changes because a blocked site was cited. So I deleted the cite and put in a note to that effect. Does anyone know if this is the best way to deal with that? (You can find the deleted link by going to an older version of this main page and searching for "Nationmaster".) Doric Loon (talk) 10:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: I'm challenging this particular deletion by User:TompaDompa on 18 September 2022, which I just reverted.  The assertion, which I inserted, is adequately cited to The New York Times, a reliable source.  
The grounds given was: "Dubious inclusion. We would need sources discussing this use, not engaging in it."  This makes no sense for singling out the example of the NYT's discussion of Disney parks over any other.  Every single citation in the article appears to be "engaging in it." If you believe that's a problem (i.e., if the entire article amounts to a WP:NOT or WP:NOR issue), then submit this article to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:34, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:PROPORTION:  Do WP:Reliable sources on the subject of the phrase "the empire on which the sun never sets" cover the aspect of it being ?This is properly sourced as an example of this type of use, but the underlying assertion that  is your personal WP:ANALYSIS. Why "private American corporations"? Why not "The Walt Disney Company"? Why not "theme parks"? Why not "private corporations? This kind of analysis needs to come from the sources, because otherwise you are engaging in WP:Original research. TompaDompa (talk) 19:48, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember an identical discussion several years ago and nothing has changed, so I'll just copy and paste what I said then: The Walt Disney company is not an 'empire', it is not ruled by an emperor and it does not govern a collection of territories. I am, of course, familiar with the informal use of the term to cover multinational enterprises, but that is generally applied to companies dominated by a single powerful individual (e.g. Rupert Murdoch, ) rather than a board, as is the case with Disney. In any case we make it clear in the introduction that we are talking about historical empires, not companies. Furthermore, your sources do not use the word "empire", they simply say that the sun never sets on... There are lots of things the sun does not set on; this article is not a list of those things, regardless of whether we can find sources showing that someone says that they are.  TompaDompa is correct, this is synthesis and should be removed. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Challenging deletion of properly sourced assertion 

message: There needs to be an unambiguous, contemporaneous reference to the use of the phrase regarding Charles V's empire. There are references in standard biographies of him being "His Majesty to whom the whole world is subject" (Hugh Thomas, The Golden Empire: Spain, Charles V, and the Creation of America. Random House 2010, 35) but not the exact or even close to the wording that is the subject of this article. If such a contemporary quotation exists, please give the citation. Amuseclio (talk) 19:39, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I understand the objection. Peoples and Empires: A Short History of European Migration, Exploration, and Conquest, from Greece to the Present says  Other sources (though not the ones cited in the article) also attribute this to Ariosto. TompaDompa (talk) 06:19, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I edited the article text to explicitly cite Pagden's citation of Ariosto. I am consulting with colleagues in Spanish history about the use of the quote for Charles V's empire.  It would be optimal to track down the publication details of the Ariosto quotation. Amuseclio (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Empire of Charles V