Talk:Space burial

message: This brief section currently seems like original research. Making predictions (not back by sources) about what may happen "if humans colonize space" runs counter to the idea that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -Phoenixrod 04:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Full Body Burial section

message: Seems a reasonable section to me. The Heinlein story is definately worth mentioning. Artw 06:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks very much like the Heinlein story might be the first mention of the concept - I've not been able to find any references that establish that in as many words, but if someone does and can add it it will help beef up the section considerably. Artw 07:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds interesting. That's precisely the kind of information such a section should contain. --Eyrian 08:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fiction section 

message: The problem with the fictional characters section is that it is an immensely common trope in fiction, and the burial is generally only a peripheral part of the work. As the burials are generally not important to the work in question, and not important to the subject of the article beyond "Space burial is seen in science fiction", they need to stay out. --Eyrian 06:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't share your reasoning, on this or on the articles where you've applied similar rationals for removing material. See above. I've reverted your change until you get some kind of consensus for it or can show that it is unambiguously backed by some kind of policy. Artw 06:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia is not a trivia collection. Entries that are neither important to the work, and cannot be shown to be generally relevant, are unquestionably trivial. --Eyrian 06:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, Eyrian does not seem to realize that Wikipedia is a unique encyclopedia that greatly differs from other online encyclopedias in that anyone can contribute to Wikipedia and everyone is a volunteer. The only reason other encyclopedias aren't as large as Wikipedia is because they don't have enough resources to make it as large, and they only want hired  professionals writing their articles.--ElminsterAumar 06:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Eyrian is correct in that Wikipeida has content guidelines and policiesthat are there for a reason, and they should be stuck to. Claiming otherwise is not particularly helpfull, and in this case not really the issue since the policies do not support his position. Artw 07:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don't mind him; just another one of my ever-growing retinue of admirers. --Eyrian 07:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The policy you linked to is pretty clear on Trivia lists: "Large sections of indirectly-related details should be avoided as they diminish articles' overall readability and utility." - I do noty believe the fiction section represents such a thing, no that if it did represent such a thing removing the entire section would be an appropriate response. Artw 07:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The bold text stands alone as well as with the rest. Wikipedia is not a trivia collection. This excessive list did distract from the main article topic. Again, the significance of these things needs to be verified, otherwise they're not significant. Why would we include insignificant details? --Eyrian 07:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  For what it's worth your last edit, which removes some items that clearly didn't belong there while leaving the rest of section intact, is much better. I'd have no problem with your edits to fiction and popular culture sections if they were all of that nature. Artw 07:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Most certainly not. However, please address my last comment. --Eyrian 07:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In reference to you last point I'd say that when you slow down and take the time and energy to do a good job of it you are capable of making some good judgement calls on what is and isn't significant, but that most of the time you rush it. Also that on judgement calls of that kind it is better to take a collaborative approach and build consensus than to rush in half cokced, point at a few policies that kind-of-sort-of support you and expect everyone to go along with it Artw 07:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Very well, I feel we've slowed down. Let's talk about this. Seriously, that list is pretty long, and the entries there aren't really significant to the understanding of space burial. It's nice to note that it's a fictional concept, as well, but they're all pretty straightforward instances of someone's remains to the black deep rather than the blue. Listing them all is just... silly. If there are any that have verifiable cultural impact, include them. Otherwise, they just get in the way. --Eyrian 07:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia removal 

message: For many years, I had read that his boyfriend, lauched his ashes into space at the turn of the millenuim, but they were acutally spread on Earth.--Hailey 18:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Graham Chapman rumor 

message: Why is the "Space disasters" section part of the "Space burial" article and not a separate one? The place of a person's burial is NOT usually the same as the place of death. ViennaUK (talk) 08:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Space disasters 

message: The article doesn't completely describe the method of delivery. A rocket with cremated remains is delivered to orbit, circles the earth, and re-enters. At what point are the remains "buried in space", and how? Readers can come up with some plausible explanations on their own, but they shouldn't have to. Boneyard90 (talk) 09:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  How? 

message: 'It may thus be described as a symbolic act rather than actual burial.' I find this an odd sentence. Aren't all burials (as opposed to a simple disposing of a body) symbolic acts? In my opinion, this sentence needs fleshing out. 84.192.118.77 (talk) 23:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Symbolic burial 

message: Actually hoisting ashes into space would not be a burial at all, but the opposite.  Bury means put under ground.  Actually it appears that all or most of what this article refers to is putting ashes in an orbit over the earth from which orbit eventually the ashes fall back to earth -- not space burial at all.  Methinks all the references to orbit burial should be removed or put in a subcategory.  If there have been successful launching of ashes into outer space (beyond the earth & the sun's gravity grasp), that should be treated specifically, or it should be noted that this has never happened.   Also, the taking of a small sample of ashes is quite a different concept from launching an entire physical remains of a man into outer space.  And really there is nothing all that special about orbiting ashes that fall back, as this is really much like tossing them in the air.  (EnochBethany (talk) 03:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Orbit Burial Is Not Space Burial

message: The article lists several people whose remains are scheduled to be aboard the Sunjammer, but the article says "Citing a lack of confidence in its contractor’s ability to deliver, the mission was cancelled in October 2014." I'll try to revise this article when I have time, but feel free to beat me to it.
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 17:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sunjammer