Talk:Sun in fiction

The contention that the Sun was thought to get its heat from combustion until the mid-1920s is wrong.

The article states that " Before it was understood that the Sun is powered by nuclear fusion, the prevailing assumption among writers was that combustion was the source of its heat and light" and that "By the 1920s, the combustion hypothesis was superseded" however both of these statements are wrong. Combustion had been ruled out by scientists as the source of the sun's energy by the mid-19th century, instead it was proposed by physicists such as Lord Kelvin that the Sun got its heat from gravitational contraction and the Kelvin–Helmholtz mechanism. See Age of Earth and The source of solar energy, ca. 1840–1910: From meteoric hypothesis to radioactive speculations as evidence for this. As such, the info that combustion was thought to power the sun until the 1920s is wrong. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

There is no contradiction between the prevailing assumption among writers being one thing and scientists having dismissed that as nonsense. The purported Martian canals are a famous (or perhaps infamous) example. I have tweaked the wording to avoid stating that fusion directly replaced combustion as the prevailing scientific explanation, but I don't think Kelvin's proposed explanation warrants a mention at this article as I view it to be extraneous detail in the context of the history of how the Sun has been depicted in fiction. TompaDompa (talk) 16:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Should the article’s scope be expanded?

I was surprised to see that the article’s scope doesn’t include earthly experiences of the sun—the first instance of the sun in fiction that comes to my mind is The Stranger, which is not in scope for the article as it is. Is there objection to expanding scope to include the sun in all its narrativizations? Zanahary (talk) 01:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you mean, but the scope reflects the coverage in sources on the overarching topic: Sun in fiction. TompaDompa (talk) 01:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

"For a long time"?

I'm surprised to see this in the first sentence of a today's FA. How long is this long time supposed to be? MOS:DATED suggests relative expressions of time should be confined to "very long periods". The example given is on the scale of an geological epoch. Classical literature to the twentieth century is a long time, but it's no epoch. In the first section following the lede, I see that this assertion has to do with "early science fiction," but beyond an indication that this was before the late 1800s, I have no idea how this assertion is measured or why it should be in the lede. Guidethebored (talk) 03:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

For the record, the passage in MOS:DATED the above refers to is:

Relative-time expressions are acceptable for very long periods, such as geological epochs: Humans diverged from other primates long ago, but only recently developed state legislatures.

I can't say I see the problem here, but then I wouldn't as I'm the one who wrote it in the first place. TompaDompa (talk) 07:00, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

It is already implied. MOS:DATED is more for something like writing "now" for an event that happens in 2023. 113.160.44.130 (talk) 12:28, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

section to add: time travel

I would like to add the section below. the sourcing for this is from the wikipedia articles that I linked to.

===Time travel===

In the television series Star Trek, time travel is consistently shown as occuring through the method of having the starship "slingshot" around the Sun. This was depicted in various episodes, notably in the episode "Tomorrow is Yesterday". The same method was depicted in the episode "Assignment: Earth".

Sm8900 (talk) 14:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. None of the sources on the overarching topic of this article—Sun in fiction—that I consulted when writing this article cover this aspect. Have you found such sources that do? TompaDompa (talk) 14:28, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

ok here are some references.

• TOS Invented Star Trek's Best Time Travel BYJOHN ORQUIOLA,PUBLISHED DEC 13, 2022.
• Star Trek just retconned a Spock superpower in a crucial way.
• How Star Trek IV’s Time Travel Works By Mike Reyes, published August 09, 2020

Sm8900 (talk) 14:50, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

this is another good reference.

• Time Travel in Star Trek: The Original Series (TOS)

Sm8900 (talk) 14:54, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

The relative quality of those sources aside, none of them are about the overarching topic of this article: Sun in fiction. TompaDompa (talk) 14:55, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

i think you don't quite glean how references work. it is fine to use references which pertain to the specific data being sourced. that is what references are. Sm8900 (talk) 14:59, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

For WP:Verifiability, yes. But sources are not only used for verification, they are also used for assessing WP:Due weight. As Wikipedia's WP:Core content policy WP:PROPORTION states: An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. "On the subject" is key here—an article on the topic Sun in fiction should be based on sources on the overarching topic Sun in fiction and reflect the relative weight given by those sources to different aspects of the overarching topic Sun in fiction. If sources on the overarching topic Sun in fiction do not mention a particular aspect, then it is a WP:MINORASPECT that should not be mentioned in Wikipedia's article on the topic Sun in fiction. TompaDompa (talk) 15:07, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

there are plenty of articles that do not follow that pattern. plenty. innumerable, actually. I'm not going tio list them here, because I don't want to open them up for unnecessary contention, or needless debate. I am simply noting that. anyway, I will watch this discussion proceed, assuming others comment here. thanks. Sm8900 (talk) 15:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

If you know of articles that violate our WP:Core content policies by giving undue weight to WP:MINORASPECTS, you should strive to fix that massive WP:NPOV problem. TompaDompa (talk) 15:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

it's not an WP:NPOV problem. it is one method used to develop articles. Sm8900 (talk) 15:17, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

ok. here are some articles that use some references that do not necessarily comprise articles on the over-arching topic itself. here is one. here is another, here is a third one, here is another one. Sm8900 (talk) 15:19, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I am convinced that you understand the difference between being based on sources on the overarching topic and relying exclusively thereon. If those articles do not reflect the relative weight given to different aspects by sources on the overarching topic, that's a WP:PROPORTION problem. TompaDompa (talk) 15:24, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, violating WP:Core content policies by disregarding the relative weight given to different aspects of a topic by the relevant literature on the subject in favour of applying one's own opinion about what is important and what is not is certainly not a "method used to develop articles". TompaDompa (talk) 15:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

it is precisely how articles are developed. Wikipedia is written by human editors. if the articles start writing wikipedia, I guess that will be better. maybe you should fix the article on Universe. Sm8900 (talk) 15:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

found another one. maybe fix this article as well. Christiaan Huygens. Sm8900 (talk) 15:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying those articles give undue weight to what sources on the overarching topic deem WP:MINORASPECTS? TompaDompa (talk) 15:26, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

yes. every article here does, in my opinion. Sm8900 (talk) 15:31, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

that is why wikipedia is so revolutionary. until wikipedia, every survey of a topic focused mainly on the most important entities within that topic, and left out 75% of the actual informatioon. wikipeedia is the first reference work to be truly comprehensive. Sm8900 (talk) 15:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

also here are some more articles that are disturbingly prone to what the individual authors consider important according to their own individual preferences. Civilization, pottery, history, music, biology, painting, bicycles. atoms, reality. New York City. Sm8900 (talk) 15:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with TompaDompa that we would need sources that specifically discuss the topic of this article to add the suggested material. There must be hundreds of thousands of sources that discuss fiction and mention the sun's appearance in that fiction; we have to limit ourselves to sources that address the topic of fictional uses of the sun, rather than simply mentioning a particular bit of fiction that has the sun. For example, it would be easy to find mention of the "sunflowers" that Larry Niven invented in his Known Space stories; they use reflected sunlight to defend a property. Should those be added to this article? Not unless a source discusses them as an example of the use of the sun in fiction. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree. This article is an overview of the Sun in fiction, not a TV Tropes list of every well-known time the Sun was used in fiction. I think TompaDompa's approach works very well for this type of article. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

It's really as simple as "we don't suspend our usual WP:Policies and guidelines when we write articles on fiction-related subjects". That includes, among other things, not basing articles on primary sources and abiding by due weight. TompaDompa (talk) 16:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

ok, fair enough. thanks for the replies on this. Sm8900 (talk) 16:50, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Linking of non-fiction articles

@TompaDompa, I understand your revert, however I see a few instances of non-fiction-related articles being linked in the lead section, i.e. in the section for solar eclipses. Is there a difference between those instances and my edit? Catalyzzt (talk) 16:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

The idea is that linking the phrase "death of the Sun" to Sun#After core hydrogen exhaustion doesn't really match when the death of the Sun in this particular context to a large extent refers to running out of combustion fuel. TompaDompa (talk) 17:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Move to The Sun in fiction

This article should be moved to The Sun in fiction, following English-language idiomatic use and WP:COMMONNAME. Every star is a sun, but there is only one Sun, referred to universally as "the Sun" in English. — The Anome (talk) 17:02, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

That would seem to go against WP:NCTHE, no? I'll note that our article on the Sun is at Sun, not The Sun (which is a disambiguation page). TompaDompa (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Also worth noting that WP:NCTHE specifically states Earth as an example (as opposed to "The Earth"). Perhaps a better example is Moon, which is the article on The Moon. Catalyzzt (talk) 18:09, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Suggest including Andy Weir's novel, Project Hail Mary

I suggest including Andy Weir's 2021 novel Project Hail Mary to the section on fiction related to solar dimming. This book, from the author of "The Martian," is about an alien microorganism that is sucking up the Sun's energy, threatening humanity with extinction. Given the popularity of the book (and its potential adaptation into a film starring Ryan Gosling), it seems worth including. The novel is a bestseller and has been reviewed in The New York Times.

Proposed sentence for inclusion: "Andy Weir's 2021 novel Project Hail Mary depicts a scenario where humanity faces extinction due to solar dimming caused by an alien microorganism." Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/04/books/review/andy-weir-project-hail-mary.html CipherSleuth (talk) 17:26, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking about this too, and it's definitely notable. But all other examples in the section are about something happening to the Sun directly. Many works depict a blocked out sun (i.e. Hoyle's The Black Cloud) but they are far too numerous to list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catalyzzt (talk • contribs) 17:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Do any sources on the overarching topic of this article—Sun in fiction—mention this? TompaDompa (talk) 18:07, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I see your point. You are looking for sources that specifically discuss the novel in relation to fiction about the Sun (for me to say it relates to the body of work would be primary research). Fair enough. There are no sources I know of that make that connection; possibly there would be if the novel wasn't so recently published in 2021. So, I can agree with the logic not to include. To the point by the user, Catalyzzt, I would argue that the alien microorganism actively consumes the Sun's energy, a direct effect on the Sun. This is distinct from an indirect effect, such as a radiation cloud blocking the Sun. The microorganisms draining of the Sun’s energy causes the solar dimming around which the plot revolves.--CipherSleuth (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Another possible example to add

I'm not sure how exactly the list was narrowed down, but in the realm of works where the Sun plays a fairly major role... Digital Devil Saga 2 has the sun be the "final dungeon" where the last part of the game takes place. Further, the sun = the Internet = heaven = the world soul = Brahman = god, or some such (they're all the same thing). When people die, their data goes to the sun to merge with the world soul (or even when AI programs die in a simulation, they also end up in the sun / giant data warehouse. don't think about it too hard). In the final act, the solar data of Our Heroes fights the confused solar data of various villains who are stuck in the moment before their death, and then our hero's solar data confronts Brahman / God to make them stop turning everyone on Earth to stone with evil solar rays (yeah, everyone lives underground after the Sun / God went crazy and sunlight turned you into a statue). It's very strange, but the Sun is definitely a major role - just unsure what the sourcing standards are for this article.

I feel like "mystical" takes on a Sentient sun are reasonably common, but maybe not really the purpose of this article (lots of "Sun gods" out there which are basically normal people). SnowFire (talk) 18:00, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Do any sources on the overarching topic of this article—Sun in fiction—mention this? TompaDompa (talk) 18:07, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

This is precisely what I'm asking you, and why I posted on the talk page. Did it ever come up in the sources you read? Well, the ones published after its release, at least.

And like I said above, I'm not 100% sure how exactly the criteria for inclusion was decided here - it seems like the Encyclopedia of Science Fiction & Fantasy are heavily used, but the title suggests "in fiction" which is a broader scope than just, say, 1930s sci-fi. But I understand that the article shouldn't be a zillion words long and an indiscriminate list. SnowFire (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

No, it did not come up in any of the literature on the overarching topic I consulted when writing this article (though there may be relevant sources that I did not come across). Inclusion here was determined in accordance with WP:PROPORTION, i.e. treating each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject (other ways of explaining the same concept in the context of fiction-related articles can be found at MOS:POPCULT and the essays WP:CARGO and WP:IPCV). TompaDompa (talk) 10:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Ring (Baxter novel)

TompaDompa, I don't know if Ring, the 1994 novel is listed on the page, if not probably a good addition. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

It's not mentioned, no. Looking at the sources on the overarching topic—Sun in fiction—the sole mention I find is Brin's Sundiver includes an extensive and scrupulous summary of modern scientific knowledge, including detailed studies carried out by Skylab crews in 1973–1974, but not the results of the Solar Maximum Mission (1980–1989), whose endeavours were further extrapolated in the description of the solar probe featured in Stephen Baxter's Ring (1994). in the "Sun, The" entry of Brian Stableford's Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia. That doesn't lend itself to much for this article, and it's such a WP:MINORASPECT based on how it's covered (or more to the point, hardly covered at all) by the overall literature that it's a bit difficult to justify including it anyway. Baxter is also already covered in the article, albeit briefly. But thanks for the suggestion. TompaDompa (talk) 21:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I haven't read the book, just going by editing the Wikipedia page which includes in the lead summary: "Two parallel plots are followed throughout the novel: that of Lieserl, an AI exploring the interior of the Sun, and that of the Great Northern, a generation ship on a five-million-year journey" which, if accurate, has a large focus on the AI spending millions of years exploring the Sun's interior. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

The Moon is not a planet

In the "See Also" section, there is a clickable image with the caption "Clicking on a planet leads to the article about its depiction in fiction." Noting that Pluto is not in that image, the Moon should not be there as well. 187.45.110.49 (talk) 13:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Good catch. Have added 'or the Moon' to the caption. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:09, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The image is from NASA. They explain that the reason Pluto is not included is that no high-quality photograph yet existed when the montage was created (their exact wording is Pluto is not shown as no spacecraft has yet visited it.). As for why they included the Moon (but none of e.g. Jupiter's or Saturn's satellites), you would have to ask them. The image being what it is, the caption is there to establish that it is clickable. You can see the WP:FAC about why it doesn't say "or the Moon" or similar. TompaDompa (talk) 14:12, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay, but just using 'planet' and leaving out '...or the Moon' does impart an incomplete caption or inaccuracy to the image. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I mean, it's accurate that clicking on a planet leads to the relevant article, even if the caption is technically incomplete in not also saying that clicking on the Moon does likewise. But if we imagine for a moment that we removed the link for the Moon, so clicking on it didn't lead anywhere, I expect that readers would be surprised to find this to be the case even with the caption that specifies "planet". That is to say, the Moon being clickable is the expected behaviour even with the caption that specifies "planet". Making the caption clunkier, when the function is already intuitively inferred by readers, is not helpful. TompaDompa (talk) 14:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense although a bit inaccurate. And of course the link shouldn't be removed. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I think of it as akin to Dinosaurs in Jurassic Park—strictly speaking pterosaurs aren't dinosaurs, but readers will expect them to be covered in the article (and they are) and there's no need to make the title clunkier to make it more technically accurate. TompaDompa (talk) 14:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)