This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mercury in fiction article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
I'm not understanding what the distinction is between "Old Mercury" and "New Mercury". It seems there is a split in the 1960s, but I don't know what event transpired that creates this distinction. -Thunderforge (talk) 06:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the introduction to the page, it explains that the "Old Mercury" was considered tidally locked to the sun, and had one face permanently exposed and one face permanently in night. PaulWay (talk) 23:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
HTML document size: 105 kB
Prose size (including all HTML code): 11 kB
References (including all HTML code): 18 kB
Wiki text: 11 kB
Prose size (text only): 5308 B (886 words) "readable prose size"
References (text only): 3684 B
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
File:Orbital resonance of Mercury horizontal.gif = Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication.
Overall:
This article appears to restrict both its scope and sources to several Encyclopaedia of Science Fiction and one other source on science fiction writers.
My sense is that the scope of this article is not as wide as it could be, considering Mercury appears in film, book, comics and games be they board games or video games.
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.
I recommend renominting this. I find the above failing of the article without opportunity to discuss unfair. I think the article is a bit short and doesn't utilize all sources, but I don't see how it is "too limited in scope". What else to add? The reviewer didn't even make any suggestions... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here10:48, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Transclusion from GA Review Page comments prior to review
There may be more information about turning Mercury into a Dyson sphere, but none of the sources I've found discuss that in a fiction context (though a quick Google search turns up quite a few webpages about it as a thought experiment), and it would probably be undue to add more than a brief sentence about it if such a source were to be found, since we're supposed to cover the different aspects of the topic in WP:PROPORTION to their coverage in published reliable sources on the topic. I've tried to find appropriate images to add, but without success so far I'm afraid. I've added that Mercury is the planet closest to the Sun, and there is of course a link to the article on the planet itself: Mercury (planet). TompaDompa (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2021 (UTC) transcluded by reviewer:: --Whiteguru (talk) 05:19, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CactiStaccingCrane We need to consider whether the topic has been discussed in RS. For example, while I was working on Earth in fiction, I noticed a number of aspects that I think should be discussed but were not (in RS covering this topic). Sadly, I could not add them to the article b/c they'd represent my OR views on this topic. Incidentally, Earth could also be dismantled... and has been, in some works of fiction - but no source I used touched upon this (unless we count Hitchhiker's Guide, I guess... :P ). I concur with images. Not sure if we need to summarize what Mercury really is in depth, although working in a sentence or three early on for context makes sense. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here11:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Solar System in fiction has no sources whatsoever. Moreover, the main sources I've consulted treat the planets separately (mostly, at least). Anyway, do either of you have any particular suggestions about what images to add? TompaDompa (talk) 01:34, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The source seems to be saying that the moving city concept didn't appear until the 2012 novel 2312, no? Mercury also serves as a location in many of Kim Stanley Robinson's novels and short stories. These include The Memory of Whiteness (1985), Blue Mars (1996), and 2312 (2012), in which Mercury is the home to a vast city called Terminator. To avoid the harmful radiation and heat, the city rolls around the planet's equator on tracks, keeping pace with the planet's rotation so that it stays ahead of the Sun. [...] Charles Stross' 2008 novel Saturn’s Children involves a similar concept to Robinson's 2312, where a city called Terminator traverses the surface on rails, keeping pace with the planet's rotation. I don't get the impression from the source that those stories by Robinson are a series, and our articles don't seem to imply that either. Anyway, I'll expand the article somewhat. TompaDompa (talk) 07:19, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the top matches on Earwig's Copyvio Detector and found no concerns. Image positioning, captions and licensing all seem fine. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not a huge range of sources cited, but all are good quality as far as I can tell, and there is enough range for a GA. Based on what I've seen in the sources, breadth and depth seem appropriate for a GA. Did some spot checks and found no issues.
You could add some date ranges in the lead (e.g. "appeared as a setting in fiction since at least 1622"; 1893 as the start of the belief about it being tidally locked)
Ref 1 shows me a "url-status (link)" error.
Early depictions: any reason not to include a few lines about the planet, e.g that it'd been known since ancient times, temperatures? I think ""the innermost planet of the Solar System" should be included here so that the citation can be removed from the lead.
Tidal locking: "Examples include ..." is a pretty long sentence but I found it OK to read.
I was hoping to claim that Mission to Mercury should be mentioned as I used to like the Hugh Walters Chris Godfrey of U.N.E.X.A.series, but a quick search suggests it may not be very notable.
Optional: You could use IABot to archive sources.
Any reason not to include the ISBN for The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction (4th ed.)?
About the WP:LEAD: The main reason I want the reference at the end of the lead is that the division into three distinct phases is a very useful one, and I want to give credit where credit is due in terms of where it comes from. I've summarized what the source says in my own words, but not citing the source would feel a bit too close to WP:PLAGIARISM for my comfort. Adding information to the lead that is not present in that source would therefore be a bit odd to my eye, though still possible (so if you want me to, I will).
I'm not getting any error message for ref 1, but I have at any rate removed the parameter.
I don't think background information on Mercury itself (size, temperature, history of observation, etymology, and so on) really belongs at this article, which I would prefer to stay focused on how the planet has been depicted in fiction. I think the purpose of providing background information about the planet is better served by linking to the main Mercury (planet) article, as is currently the case. The exception to this is the background information deemed by the sources on the topic of how the planet has been depicted in fiction to be important for context (e.g. the history of the belief that it was tidally locked to the sun). I have added a sentence about the proximity to the Sun making astronomical observations difficult thus influencing fictional depictions, since several sources mention this.
I added some archive links. I don't think they make much sense for books, so I didn't add them there. I also didn't add any to the SFE references (the entries at the SFE themselves link to the Wayback Machine).
Thanks, TompaDompa. I'm happy with responses and amendments. "the innermost planet of the Solar System" from the lead is not in the body; I believe that it should be, as the lead is meant to summarise information in the article. (That's my interpretation of MOS:NOTLEDE, but I'm always open to discussion.) I'll give myself a gentle Self-trout for asking about the ISBN for an online edition. Also, there's a place where the refs are [3][2][11] - these could be put in numerical order. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BennyOnTheLoose:MOS:LEAD says Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. I think Mercury being the innermost planet counts as one of those basic facts that an exception can be made for. I put the references in ascending numerical order. TompaDompa (talk) 01:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk pageorWikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
... that many fictional depictions of Mercury feature the now-disproven belief that it always points the same side towards the Sun(actual 3:2 spin–orbit resonance pictured)?Source: Mercury had been thought to keep the same face toward the Sun as the Moon does to the Earth. [...] In fact, however, Mercury rotates three times for every two orbits [...] Early stories about Mercury, when not completely fanciful, inevitably focused on the contrast between the Dayside and the Nightside (The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy, p. 513); Until the late nineteenth century it was believed to rotate on its axis every 24 hours or so, but this opinion was displaced by that of Giovanni Schiaparelli (1835-1910) and Percival Lowell, who contended that it kept the same face permanently towards the Sun. Twentieth-century sf writers thus pictured it as having an extremely hot "dayside", a cold "nightside" and a narrow "twilight zone". [...] It emerged in 1965 that the planet has a 3:2 spin-orbit resonance, rotating three times for each two orbits around the Sun: there is no permanent nightside. (The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, "Mercury")
Comment: This is my fourth or fifth DYK (depending on whether one counts Hyperspace, which I received DYK credit for although my contribution was really reviewing the article for WP:Good article status).
Substantial article, meeting of GA criteria implicates DYK pass. Article was nominated within 7 days of passing GA. Nominator is QPQ exempt. No pings on Earwigs for copyvio. Hook is interesting, cited, and short enough for DYK. Included image is properly licensed. Morgan695 (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you --Whiteguru (talk) 00:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
b(citations to reliable sources): 
b(focused): 
· 
· 
Self-trout for asking about the ISBN for an online edition. Also, there's a place where the refs are [3][2][11] - these could be put in numerical order. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Substantial article, meeting of GA criteria implicates DYK pass. Article was nominated within 7 days of passing GA. Nominator is QPQ exempt. No pings on Earwigs for copyvio. Hook is interesting, cited, and short enough for DYK. Included image is properly licensed. Morgan695 (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
