Talk:Fictional planets of the Solar System

image at bottom doesn't work on mobile

The image of the planets where if you click it leads to pages about them doesn't work on mobile. TheT.N.T.BOOM! (talk) 11:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Hm. It works for me. Might depend on the device and/or browser? TompaDompa (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Non-editable article

Unfortunately, this page appears to be a particular user's de-facto private fiefdom; anyone else's edits will be summarily deleted, on a variety of pretexts, 100% of the time. (It would be useful if there were some way to tag this sort of situation, as it is represents a waste of other users' time. To be sure, the revision history here speaks for itself, but some kind of more prominent "YOU NEEDN'T BOTHER" tag might be convenient?)

Senix (talk) 01:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

If you think there are WP:OWNERSHIP issues, the venue to bring that up is WP:ANI. Otherwise, it is generally a good idea when you get reverted and disagree with the reason to take it to the talk page to discuss the substance of your edits and explain why you think they were an improvement. That's one of the ways consensus is built on Wikipedia. TompaDompa (talk) 03:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I suppose it was naive to think WP was somehow immune to enshittification, though it it is fascinating to see the unique form the phenomenon takes on in the context of a noncommercial project. But anyway, friendly warning to anyone contemplating an edit: don't waste your time. The "NO TRESPASSING" sign could not be more clearly posted. Senix (talk) 05:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fictional planets of the Solar System/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: TompaDompa (talk · contribs) 01:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) 00:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Gor-orbit-diagram.svg - Looks good.
• File:Fictional Planets of the Solar System.svg - Looks good

Prose review

• Honestly, I can't find anything to fault in the prose.

Source review

• Is it necessary to have three, four, or five references for one statement? Feels like overkill.
  • I could probably reduce the number of sources in some instances, but the reason multiple sources are cited for each sentence tends to be that they verify slightly different information. For instance: the sentence Anomalies in Mercury's orbit around the Sun led Urbain Le Verrier to propose the existence of an unseen planet with an orbit interior to Mercury's exerting gravitational influence in 1859, similar to how irregularities in Uranus' orbit had led to his mathematical prediction of Neptune and its subsequent discovery in 1846. cites three sources, where one verifies that Vulcan was proposed in 1859, while another verifies that Urbain Le Verrier was the one who predicted Neptune (in addition to Vulcan), and the third verifies that the anomalies in Uranus' orbit was what led to the discovery (not just prediction) of Neptune. I fairly often end up with situations like this due to the way I write articles, where different parts of a sentence (occasionally just a single word) rely on different sources. Another reason is that I tend to cite all of the highest-quality sources (for my science fiction articles these are usually The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy, Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia, and Science Fiction Literature through History: An Encyclopedia) that are relevant to a particular aspect to keep track of which sources can be used to expand upon certain points when writing the article (so there are probably places where I could make do with fewer sources than are currently cited—but I would need to check each individual instance so I don't accidentally remove a source that is crucial as a result of my citing habits described in the previous sentence). I prefer putting the sources at the end of the sentence in cases like this rather than in the middle of the sentence after the specific point that particular source verifies, and this leads to a cluster of sources at the end of the sentence (this is a point I've elaborated upon before). At any rate, this is not part of the WP:Good article criteria. TompaDompa (talk) 23:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

• Entirely fair, and entirely true that it's not a GA criterion. I just wanted to flag this in case there were any areas where paring could happen.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

• Earwig shows no concern.
• Spot-check based on this revision

• 5 - Looks good
• 10c - Looks good
• 16d - Looks good

Conclusion

• This article is in excellent shape. Will do a spotcheck after this. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

• This article has been written excellently, and is an easy pass. Good work! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Schematic diagram of the orbits of the fictional planets Vulcan, Counter-Earth, and Phaëton in relation to the five innermost planets of the Solar System.

• ... that fictional planets of the Solar System include a planet inside the orbit of Mercury, Counter-Earth, and a destroyed planet between Mars and Jupiter (schematic diagram of orbits pictured)?

• Source: See the sections "Vulcan", "Counter-Earth", and "Phaëton" in the article.

• ALT1: ... that fictional planets of the Solar System include planets between Venus and Earth, planets on the inside of a hollow Earth, and a planet "behind the Earth"? Source: https://books.google.com/books?id=PbMdeizaCNcC&pg=PA539
• ALT2: ... that fictional planets of the Solar System (examples pictured) have been depicted since the 1700s? Source: Many other additional planets were hypothesised in fiction and speculative nonfiction from the eighteenth century onwards.
• ALT3: ... that planets that do not exist (examples pictured) have appeared in fiction since the 1700s? Source: Many other additional planets were hypothesised in fiction and speculative nonfiction from the eighteenth century onwards.
• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Fictional religion & Template:Did you know nominations/Drone congregation area
• Comment: ALT2 and ALT3 are different phrasings of the same basic hook. I can come up with more hooks if none of these strike the reviewer's fancy.

Improved to Good Article status by TompaDompa (talk). Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 23 past nominations.

TompaDompa (talk) 00:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC).

• Approve ALT0 or ALT1 (ultimately up to the promoter to decide whether they want additional links in the hook or not). As interesting as ALT2 or ALT3 may be, I don't think everyone's interested in chronological facts, unfortunately. PrimalMustelid (talk) 14:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  For the record, my own preference is ALT0. TompaDompa (talk) 20:58, 11 December 2024 (UTC)