User talk:TompaDompa/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions with User:TompaDompa. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi, I saw that you reverted this edit with the rationale of it being overly detailed. I made that addition because the term "massive star" is potentially subjective without quantification. While I agree that this article shouldn't delve too deeply into technical details, it doesn't strike me as extraneous detail to clarify what a massive star is and I believe a comparison to the Sun should be understandable to a broad audience (although perhaps worded slightly differently). Thanks, ^Complex/_Rational 14:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I understand your point of view, but on the other hand the sources we have that discuss the specific topic of supernovae in fiction don't go into this level of detail, and we should follow their lead. Linking to Stellar evolution#Massive stars is sufficient. Nevertheless, I added an explanatory footnote about why the Sun cannot turn into a supernova. TompaDompa (talk) 15:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. That wikilink is still an improvement over before and addresses the technical details adequately. ^Complex/_Rational 19:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey Tompa, I could use your help, or at least your advice. Another editor is being abusive and I'm wondering if I should go straight to dispute resolution or if I should try other approaches first. We had a long conversation that ended in a stalemate, but then I finally realized their point of view and changed my editing based on their feedback. Now they are getting upset and making threats based on small and harmless edits I'm making (adding a photo, adding a source, removing redundant wikilinks, etc). You can view the latest conversation on my talk page. Wafflewombat (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Having looked into this specific situation extremely little, I'll give you advice I should probably follow more often myself: try disengaging for a while and edit elsewhere in the meantime. You can always restart the conversation at a later point, when things have likely cooled down a bit. TompaDompa (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

That is great advice, thank you. Wafflewombat (talk) 21:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, could you give me a hand with my talk page archives? I created the archive box by copying and pasting wikitext from another user's talk page. However, I would like my box to look like yours, without the word "Talk", which in my case links to some old page. Wafflewombat (talk) 00:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Sure. You currently have the wikicode {{archives|title=[[Help:User Talk Page Postings|Talk]] [[Help:Archiving a talk page|Archives]]|}}. If you change it to {{archives|title=[[Help:Archiving a talk page|Archives]]|}}, that should do the trick. TompaDompa (talk) 19:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Bingo! Thanks. Wafflewombat (talk) 20:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

On 19 July 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Supernovae in fiction, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in fiction, supernovae are induced to serve as weapons, power sources for time travel, and advertisements? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Supernovae in fiction. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Supernovae in fiction), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

^Complex/_Rational 00:04, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

You are welcome to tweak the wording of additions to more clearly reflect the sources, but removing sourced content is borderline vandalism, and I will take this to WP:ANI for a topic ban against your further participation in this subject area. BD2412 T 21:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

That's rather silly of you. Removing sourced content is not remotely vandalism if the content misrepresents the source, or if the content is off-topic. I'm sure you understand that. I'm also sure you understand that discrimination and backlash are not the same thing, that discrimination and regulation are not the same thing, and that discrimination and registration are not the same thing. If you're adding content to the article discrimination against superheroes, the content has to be about discrimination against superheroes. If you want to add content about backlash against superheroes, regulation of superhero activity, or superhero registration, you either need to find sources that say that these are forms of discrimination against superheroes or find some other article where the content is a better fit. TompaDompa (talk) 21:44, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I have proposed in the AfD to rename the article, so the scope will be broad enough to cover the content that I have added. Curiously, you yourself noted in the edit summary that the source that I provided addresses discrimination against superheroes. If you have not understood that the legal measures discussed constitute discrimination, then you need to read the source more carefully, and not revert sourced additions so blindly. BD2412 T 21:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Renaming the article/altering the scope is not necessarily a bad idea, but that decision should of course be made before adding such content, not after. That the legal measures discussed constitute discrimination is your argument/viewpoint, not the source's; registration and discrimination are discussed separately by the source. I do indeed recognize that the source covers discrimination against superheroes (in the particular legal context of the US); what I took issue with was the specific content you added, not the source's suitability for the article as such. TompaDompa (talk) 22:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

You had the opportunity to improve the content referenced by the source to reflect the very scope you have just discussed. Instead, you chose to remove the source, as if the source itself said nothing on discrimination against superheroes. That is at best counterproductive to the purposes of the encyclopedia, and at worst an act of deception. BD2412 T 22:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I could not have improved that particular content though, considering the scope/off-topic issue noted above. I would have had to write entirely new content (presumably about whether superheroes would be protected by US laws against discrimination, which is the main thing the source discusses in terms of discrimination) using the same source. I didn't remove the source as such (i.e., intentionally), it just so happened that the particular content I removed was the only content using that source, so it disappeared from the reference list as a consequence. It could, I suppose, have been added as a "Further reading" item or similar. TompaDompa (talk) 22:32, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

You just reverted my edit. Why? The article clearly says: "Planets beyond the orbit of Neptune, or even Pluto, appear in several works of science fiction." In my example, it was referred to as the tenth planet, because Pluto was still considered a planet back then. Today it would have been called the ninth planet. It's in out solar system, but beyond the orbit of Neptune and Pluto, so why was it reverted? Silbad (talk) 04:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

The article is not meant to enumerate every single depiction of fictional planets beyond the orbit of Neptune or Pluto. Rather, it is supposed to cover each aspect in WP:PROPORTION to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. That is to say, examples should come from sources on the overarching topic of Fictional planets of the Solar System/Trans-Neptunian planets in fiction, as outlined in my edit summary. TompaDompa (talk) 04:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

From the article: "In Jules Verne's 1889 short story "In the Year 2889", the discovery of a planet beyond Neptune called "Olympus" is mentioned. Two 1931 short stories by Victor Rousseau Emanuel feature such planets: "Outlaws of the Sun", where the planet Circe has low gravity and is inhabited by primitive giants, and "Revolt on Inferno", where the planet Inferno has a hostile environment and is used as a remote penal colony." I really don't see how examples like that are different from my example. Much of the article is just examples. Not sure how many fictional planets outside Neptune and Pluto there are in fiction. If it is the source that is the problem and not the examples themselves, it should be irrelevant as long as it is trustworthy (and I have the comic, so I know it is). Silbad (talk) 04:19, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

They are different because those are examples discussed by sources covering the topic of trans-Neptunian/trans-Plutonian planets in fiction. As WP:PROPORTION says, 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. TompaDompa (talk) 04:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, I still disagree, and it feels a bit like gatekeeping, but I'm not gonna waste any more time on it. Either way, it should be mentioned in the section, using this function: Silbad (talk) 04:34, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Re: this. You noticed this faster than I did (they don't have a system for notifying authors when stuff is published, and I don't follow their updates otherwise...). Unless I get distracted, I want to write up about some more modern writers for them in the coming months/years... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Someone translated my article about Polish sf genre from pl wiki. Thought you'd enjoy it :) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi,

1. Thank you very, very much for the exhaustive copyediting and feedback on the Heat 2 and in the DYK nomination.
2. How do I go about removing it from the nomination? 2620:10D:C090:500:0:0:7:2DBD (talk) 17:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Withdrawing it? All a nominator who wishes to withdraw a DYK nomination has to do is state so on the nomination page (Template:Did you know nominations/Heat 2) and somebody will come along and close it. TompaDompa (talk) 17:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand why you reverted my edit. The material I added was brief, relevant and had citations. It is true that it's not about Saturn itself, but that's why I put it in the Titan section. Moonreach (talk) 18:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

In articles like this, examples should come from sources on the overarching topic—in this case, Saturn in fiction (or Titan in fiction for that particular section). Examples of such sources include the "Saturn" entry in Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia and the "Saturn" entry in Science Fiction Literature through History: An Encyclopedia. This is an application of Wikipedia's broader WP:PROPORTION policy, which states that articles should 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. The sources you added with your edit are not on the overarching topic, and as such do not establish weight for those particular aspects in the context of that article. TompaDompa (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks for the review... I've taken the hint and put together a short article on the Company of the Ring, noting that most of the scholarly sources hadn't existed in 2008 when the Company/Fellowship article was redirected. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey Tompa, I was curious if you'd be interested in giving Batman Returns a casual, unofficial review? I'm uplifting it but I'm considering nominating it next, potentially in time for Christmas given it's setting, if the Starship Troopers nomination gets concluded in time. Nothing as in-depth as a FA review, just general overview, second set of e yes, etc? I already know I need to look at removing some listicle sources and I've been doing copyediting, plus I'm considering splitting off the design section since I've found a lot more info to add. I just will want a second opinion before I nominate. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I will likely not be able to find the time, I'm afraid. I might, but probably not. TompaDompa (talk) 21:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

No problemo Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to check them out: W leju po bombie, Zaziemskie światy, Krzyż i półksiężyc, Na drugą planetę, Great, Greater, and Greatest, _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:33, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Neutron stars in fiction you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sir MemeGod -- Sir MemeGod (talk) 16:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

The article Neutron stars in fiction you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Neutron stars in fiction for comments about the article, and Talk:Neutron stars in fiction/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sir MemeGod -- Sir MemeGod (talk) 21:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Some of those were children's books or other works that will never have their own article. I was always under the assumption that you only left redlinks in when you suspected someone would write an article in the near future. Can you cite wikipedia policy that says we should leave a redlink in for something that will likely never have its own article? Thanks. Bkatcher (talk) 23:02, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

You have it somewhat backwards: WP:REDLINK says Only remove red links if you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on that subject. (emphasis in original). In other words, redlinks should be retained wherever an article would be valid even if it is unlikely to be created, and when there is doubt we are supposed to err on the side of retaining the redlinks. TompaDompa (talk) 23:10, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

The proxy you reverted here was being abused by WP:LTA/BMN123. I just finished doing a sweep and reverted of some of their related space race disruption elsewhere some of it going back years, but you may want to keep an eye out for it since they have taken to slow-motion edit-warring, and will almost certainly add it back again once they believe our attention shifts. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 16:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, that's very illuminating. TompaDompa (talk) 17:06, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I just caught a few more, may be worth going through some of the pages in my recent editing history and adding them to your watchlist. There was an NPOVN discussion a way back that soundly rejected one of their socks arguing that Gagarin's flight did not qualify, but I'd need to dig it up to find the specifics. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 17:16, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I remember it well. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 98#First human spaceflight. TompaDompa (talk) 18:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, I'll bookmark it for next time this happens, assuming I'm around anyway. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 18:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

On 23 October 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Neutron stars in fiction, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in fiction, neutron stars (pictured) harbour exotic lifeforms in their vicinity, on their surface, and even in their interior? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Neutron stars in fiction. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Neutron stars in fiction), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Black holes in fiction you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of The Blue Rider -- The Blue Rider (talk) 09:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, thought of you upon reading this article. I'd never heard of this fictional documentary before and checked to see if it linked to some of your fine articles, and it hasn't as yet. Please have a look when you have a minute, this might be a keeper! Randy Kryn (talk) 03:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I have found a lacuna: Space trade in fiction (as if it is not fiction already :-). And the topic is missing even in SFE! And my favs are not The Space Merchants (not much really about merchants) and not The Space Traders (a political propaganda piece), but Tuf Voyaging and Andre Norton's Solar Queen cycle. Do you think there may be something worth of an article? --Altenmann >talk 01:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Maybe. It gets mentioned more-or-less in passing in lots of secondary/tertiary sources, but I wouldn't try to make a stand-alone article without dedicated sources on the topic. I might look into it more later. TompaDompa (talk) 08:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

The article Black holes in fiction you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Black holes in fiction for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of The Blue Rider -- The Blue Rider (talk) 16:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

For future reference, the review was closed partway through as the reviewer would not be able to finish it due to being blocked. TompaDompa (talk) 16:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The redirect Andrew Gower (programmer) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 25 § Andrew Gower (programmer) until a consensus is reached. — Hubcapp (talk) 19:34, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Fictional planets of the Solar System you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Crisco 1492 -- Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

The article Fictional planets of the Solar System you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Fictional planets of the Solar System for comments about the article, and Talk:Fictional planets of the Solar System/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Crisco 1492 -- Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Just so you know, WP:LTA/BMN123 has been at it again [1] [2], I already banreverted them and reported their proxies to WPOP but they almost certainly have more available. If they're bored over the weekend we may see more of this as they tend to edit in spurts. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 01:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article A Voyage to the Moon (Tucker novel) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Black holes in fiction you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ganesha811 -- Ganesha811 (talk) 19:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article A Narrative of the Travels and Adventures of Paul Aermont among the Planets you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AirshipJungleman29 -- AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

The article A Narrative of the Travels and Adventures of Paul Aermont among the Planets you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:A Narrative of the Travels and Adventures of Paul Aermont among the Planets for comments about the article, and Talk:A Narrative of the Travels and Adventures of Paul Aermont among the Planets/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AirshipJungleman29 -- AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Science Fiction Literature through History: An Encyclopedia you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kusma -- Kusma (talk) 11:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Stars in fiction you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Vestrian24Bio -- Vestrian24Bio (talk) 12:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

On 2 January 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Fictional planets of the Solar System, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that fictional planets of the Solar System (diagram pictured) include planets between Venus and Earth, planets on the inside of a hollow Earth, and a planet "behind the Earth"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Fictional planets of the Solar System. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Fictional planets of the Solar System), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Z1720 (talk) 12:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 21,748 views (1,812.3 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of January 2025 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Extrasolar planets in fiction you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 06:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

The article Extrasolar planets in fiction you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Extrasolar planets in fiction and Talk:Extrasolar planets in fiction/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 07:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

The article Extrasolar planets in fiction you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Extrasolar planets in fiction for comments about the article, and Talk:Extrasolar planets in fiction/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

The article A Voyage to the Moon (Tucker novel) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:A Voyage to the Moon (Tucker novel) for comments about the article, and Talk:A Voyage to the Moon (Tucker novel)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Black holes in fiction at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! lullabying (talk) 06:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

The article Science Fiction Literature through History: An Encyclopedia you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Science Fiction Literature through History: An Encyclopedia for comments about the article, and Talk:Science Fiction Literature through History: An Encyclopedia/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kusma -- Kusma (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

The article Stars in fiction you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Stars in fiction for comments about the article, and Talk:Stars in fiction/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Vestrian24Bio -- Vestrian24Bio (talk) 02:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

The article Black holes in fiction you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Black holes in fiction for comments about the article, and Talk:Black holes in fiction/GA3 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ganesha811 -- Ganesha811 (talk) 16:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mesklin you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

The article Mesklin you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mesklin for comments about the article, and Talk:Mesklin/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

On 25 January 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article A Voyage to the Moon (Tucker novel), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 1827 novel A Voyage to the Moon contains the first use of anti-gravity for space travel in science fiction? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/A Voyage to the Moon (Tucker novel). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, A Voyage to the Moon (Tucker novel)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:QuicoleJR submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

Articles and sections about how something appears in popular culture have always been a unencyclopedic mess of indiscriminate listings. That is beginning to change, thanks to Editor TompaDompa. With their many good and featured articles and their over 40000 edits (with an impressive 78% in mainspace) TompaDompa has massively improved our coverage of the topic area. Some of their best improvements include Mars in fiction, Venus in fiction, and Sun in fiction, all FAs. They have also had a very large impact on our Science fiction coverage by being industrious, insightful and an up-front reviewer who is of great benefit to the FAC process. This nomination was seconded by Gog the Mild, TechnoSquirrel69 and UndercoverClassicist.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Venus

TompaDompa

Editor of the Week for the week beginning January 26, 2025

Articles and sections about topics in popular culture have always been a unencyclopedic mess of indiscriminate listings. Thanks to TompaDompa this is beginning to change. With their many good and featured articles and their over 40000 edits with an impressive 78% in mainspace, TompaDompa has massively improved our coverage of the topic area. Some of their best improvements include Mars in fiction, Venus in fiction, and Sun in fiction, all FAs. TompaDompa has had a very large impact on our Science fiction coverage by being industrious, insightful and an up-front reviewer.

Recognized for

improving coverage of SF

Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! Buster7 ^Chat 18:21, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Congratulations! QuicoleJR (talk) 19:51, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you QuicoleJR, that's very kind. Thanks also to Gog the Mild, TechnoSquirrel69, and UndercoverClassicist. I sincerely appreciate all of your kind comments at the nomination. TompaDompa (talk) 01:45, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

On 27 January 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Stars in fiction, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that stars have been depicted in fiction since the 1600s as locations that can be visited? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Stars in fiction. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Stars in fiction), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

On 28 January 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Science Fiction Literature Through History: An Encyclopedia, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Science Fiction Literature Through History: An Encyclopedia contains entries on topics not typically associated with science fiction, such as William Shakespeare and the Odyssey? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Science Fiction Literature through History: An Encyclopedia. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Science Fiction Literature Through History: An Encyclopedia), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Kusma (talk) 00:04, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

On 3 February 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article A Narrative of the Travels and Adventures of Paul Aermont Among the Planets, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that A Narrative of the Travels and Adventures of Paul Aermont Among the Planets (1873), following the cancellation of a planned second edition, was not reprinted until 2018? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/A Narrative of the Travels and Adventures of Paul Aermont among the Planets. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, A Narrative of the Travels and Adventures of Paul Aermont Among the Planets), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Ganesha811 (talk) 00:02, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

On 5 February 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Extrasolar planets in fiction, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the majority of extrasolar planets in fiction are inhabited by native species? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Extrasolar planets in fiction. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Extrasolar planets in fiction), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

On 6 February 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Black holes in fiction, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the earliest black holes in fiction appeared decades before the term black hole was coined? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Black holes in fiction. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Black holes in fiction), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Kusma (talk) 00:03, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Greetings. "The intended target here is the series, not the planet." Why? The next entry in the table is Discworld (world),the article about the world, not Discworld, the article about the series. Is that not an error as well? Is the article about the planets, or about the book series? I am a little at a loss. I haven't reverted your reversion. I think you should consider this. Wastrel Way (talk) 02:37, 7 February 2025 (UTC)Eric

The link in the left column goes to the planet, while the link in the right column goes to the series. TompaDompa (talk) 05:28, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

On 14 February 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mesklin, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that novelist Hal Clement created the planet Mesklin in 1953 based on the real-world suspected detection of an extrasolar planet? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mesklin. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Mesklin), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Launchballer 12:03, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I understand that Titan is not prominently featured in the movie Slingshot (2024 film), but Jupiter is, so what do you think about adding it to Jupiter in fiction? --The Vital One (talk) 23:39, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

The deciding factor is not how prominently the planet features in the story, but how prominently the story features in sources on the planet (or more specifically the planet's depiction in fiction). So we would look at how sources such as the "Jupiter" entry in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction cover the story (and in this particular case the answer happens to be "not at all"). TompaDompa (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

At my found manuscript? I am not sure if the name is best, and also, about scope issues (with fictional book). The academic sources seem to sometimes use this term in a narrow context (a work that claims to be based on alleged real material or is said material) and in others, it seems to be a reference to any fictional book (or text). I am having trouble separating what the sources say into two articles. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:25, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

That sounds like it would take more time than I can really dedicate to it right now, I'm afraid. I am kind of in the middle of a few different things, both on Wikipedia and off. I'll try to find the time, but I unfortunately don't think I will be able to in the near future. TompaDompa (talk) 19:38, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, TompaDompa. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

You may enjoy this :) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:31, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

A disambig for now; I am not sure if the topic isn't too broad to be covered in prose... feel free to add stuff. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:33, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

My intuition is that it is too broad as anything other than a (probably necessarily fairly disjointed) WP:SUMMARYSTYLE article. Hm. I just realized that while we do have a Space colonization article, we don't have a space colonization in fiction article (definitely a valid topic, see e.g. https://sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/colonization_of_other_worlds). TompaDompa (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Good point. So much to do. I hope SFE will publish my Earth article, FYI they told me that they are discussing this because "This may well be one of the super-broad themes (like the Future, Science, Space or the sf of the United States) deliberately not given entries because Peter Nicholls decided they are better handled piecemeal under various thematics headwords than by attempting a single all-encompassing entry." Frankly, I think all except maybe the space (outer space...) should be doable as overviews (and I can also imagine some overview on outer space...); I am somewhat surprised here - particularly in the context of American science fiction. Which we are missing too, but if we can write about American literature or Russian science fiction, I am sure we can eventually cover that one too. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:45, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

It survived AfD in 2018, but participation was small. Hypothetical technology . Isn't this just a bad Technology in fiction? _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 12:49, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

At least in theory, the two have different scopes—hypothetical technology being about speculation about technology that could (theoretically) exist in the real world and technology in fiction about the role technology (which might also include real technology, e.g. nuclear weapons or surveillance cameras) plays in fiction. Time machine (device)#In fiction would be technology in fiction while Time machine (device)#In physics would be hypothetical technology. TompaDompa (talk) 13:00, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

User:David Gerard/Motif of harmful sensation. Mentioned in https://sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/basilisks : "A useful and relevant Wikipedia entry, "Motif of harmful sensation", has been deleted". _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't notice this before the AfD was closed, but your reply to me quoting ALLPLOT quoted part of my own addition to that page here, which I found humorously ironic. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Indeed. I have, by the way, amended that portion per my notes. TompaDompa (talk) 05:08, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Cumulative density function has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Trovatore (talk) 21:36, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for all the great SF articles! PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:34, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I have for long lingered and found your points interesting for years. I saw that you once wanted to include ALL political entities in a list, but that it needed consensus and it needed to be consistent. I love that idea.

The whole reason why I even found the article List of largest empires was from a google search about the largest nations to ever exist. I was then sad to find out it only included empires that some historians deemed as empires which is fair, since it fits the name of the article. However, I was originally looking for a HUGE list with all political entities that ever existed. Currently there is only 'list of largest empires' and 'list of largest countries and dependencies by area'which are both great for their purpose, sure, but they don't truly show all of it together. Even if you combine the two, there will still be a crazy amount of worldwide polities missing. Soviet Union as an example don't currently fit in either, Kalmar Union don't either.

I have looked through the archives of some lists, including the 'list of largest empires' and it seems like users and average readers are interested in a combined list of largest political entities ever in human history, just like me. As I've seen you have too been interested in some shape or form in such an inclusion, however the two articles I mentioned might not fit such a list as a whole. Is there a possibility that you could create from the ground up, a list including ALL nations no matter their structural composition?

Example: The list would include all mentions from 'list of largest empires' and 'list of largest countries and dependencies by area' but also include the likes of Soviet Union, Kalmar Union, Norwegian realm(Norway once controlled Greenland, parts of Sweden and Finland, Scotland and Iceland) Kingdom of Norway (872–1397), USA at one time controlled whole current territory, whole Japan, some of Korea and Greenland and Philippines at their greatest extent too during end of WW2. The lists are also missing Gran Colombia. These are just some few examples of missing political entities that are neither considered empire nor modern states, therefore they are absent from both lists.

This became a long message, I apologize, but I truly hope you make a whole new article that includes EVERYTHING, not just empires and modern states. A name could be List of political entities by area. Looking through countless of editing history and talk page archives, it seems to be a very sought after article. I was personally disappointed that such a list did not exist. I want a list showing Canada and Roman Empire and Kalmar Union together, just to get an understanding of the differences. Again, sorry for this wall of text. MindfulGalaxy (talk) 03:52, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

It sounds like what you are looking for is somewhat similar to List of political and geographic subdivisions by total area. That also includes things like the Mediterranean Sea and the European Union. It's not particularly well maintained, but it's there. TompaDompa (talk) 13:01, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:15, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

This movie is considered as a cult classic for years besides its widespread critical acclaim. Not every movie gets a cult following and widespread critical acclaim with a box office success as well . So it’s a rare achievement but suddenly when I checked out someone just remove the cult following criteria I don’t know why but it was there for years , recently someone remove this . As I ain’t a professional in this edit matter in Wikipedia I don’t want to change by myself tho I changed sometimes with valuable source but in this case I don’t want to edit as I did earlier when I saw someone changed it . I hope you will research on this as a an expert and hopefully add it’s valuable information, thank you 103.137.160.238 (talk) 12:19, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi Tompa. You marked the Jonathan Swift article with citation tags at the end of several paragraphs. This is very useful to add new citations, and making it easier to submit again for GA nomination. If you have time, can please mark the "need citations" tags to required paragraphs in these articles too:

Samuel Beckett, Bram Stoker, Oliver Goldsmith, Sheridan Le Fanu, and William Congreve.

I will add citations to these easier then, and can submit them for GA nominations.

Thanks Tompa! SeanBeans1981 (talk) 06:26, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I could, but I think it would probably be just as easy for you to do it yourself, and also a good opportunity to learn and practice how to write Wikipedia articles in preparation for WP:Good article nomination. Remember, WP:Good article criterion 2b says All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)—this means that pretty much everything needs to be cited. This more-or-less applies to all articles (not just WP:Good articles) as a result of Wikipedia's WP:Core content policy on WP:Verifiability. TompaDompa (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Hey there. Although I haven't gotten the chance yet to read through them in their entirety, I do find your work on various articles about the depiction of various planets in fiction simply amazing; particularly the Mars in fiction article. While I did have an interest in astronomy when younger, I don't think I'd ever be interested in writing an article on a celestial body. However, akin to the "X celestial body in fiction" articles, I have considered working on similar articles about historical figures, and I was wondering, how do you go about writing these articles? Particularly in a way that focuses on the most significant developments and works?

To give an example, let's say I want to work on the Cultural depictions of Anne Boleyn article. It's mostly an indiscriminate list of her various appearances in media; including mere mentions, good lord. What kind of sources should I look for? A book titled "Evolution of Anne Boleyn on Film and Television" would be great, but chances are I'm not that lucky, lol. Did you go through Google Books, JSTOR, or something else?

And lets say that I do find a few books that discuss the evolution of X person's depiction in media/fiction, but said sources are at the latest from 10 years ago. A movie came out just 2 years ago that many consider highly significant in its depiction. Would the inclusion of said movie be acceptable, even if the "overview sources" don't mention it? PanagiotisZois (talk) 00:23, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

@PanagiotisZois: Thank you for your kind words! I'm glad to hear that you enjoy the articles.

As for how I go about writing these articles, I'll do my best to describe my process, but it is surprisingly difficult to put into words something I do (by now) mostly by habit.

1. The first step is finding sources on the overarching topic, i.e. "Topic X in fiction" (not just sources on "Topic X", though they can sometimes be useful as a complement). The articles I have written have mainly been on science fiction topics, and this is mostly because I have a number of go-to sources in that area that I am familiar with (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 being the main ones). This means I can usually find enough material for a decent starting point without needing to do a thorough search for additional sources at this stage. Nevertheless, if I'm trying to get an article to WP:Good article or WP:Featured article status (and not just write what basically amounts to a proof of concept or a minimum viable article, which I also do on occasion), a more thorough search for sources will need to be conducted at some point, and it is a good idea to at least come up with a reasonably-complete list of potentially useful sources at an early stage (it becomes much more of a hassle to try to incorporate new sources I discover at later stages—though that is typically what happens anyway). For the articles I work on, I have found book sources to be the most useful ones. To this end, I search Google Books and the Internet Archive. It has also been very helpful to look at what sources the sources I have already found cite in turn. For instance: for the Time viewer article, The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction has an entry that gives an article by Stephen Baxter in Foundation as a "Further reading" item, and the Baxter article turned out to be quite a gold mine (I got help with accessing it from WP:RX). I have not found Google Scholar, JSTOR, or WP:The Wikipedia Library to be particularly helpful for locating useful sources for these kinds of articles, though that might be a skill issue on my part.
2. The next step is reading the sources, and cross-referencing them. This can get very tedious, especially if there are many sources and they are lengthy ones. I make note of what the sources deem important—both in terms of themes (e.g. life on Mars) and works (e.g. The War of the Worlds)—and especially where the coverage overlaps between different sources. The idea is to get as good a sense as possible of the relative weight given to different aspects by the overall literature on the overarching topic. As Wikipedia's policy WP:PROPORTION says, articles should 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).
3. After this preparatory work, it's time to start writing the article. As you have probably noticed, I stick to a prose format rather than a list format. There are several reasons for this (that I have outlined elsewhere), but the short version is that this approach is what results in good articles rather than bad ones. When it comes to article structure, I usually do it by theme. It may occasionally be better to organize it some other way (e.g. chronologically), depending on how the sources treat the topic. I find it easiest to start with an outline of the topic by creating the various sections with just a minimum of content (like a topic sentence) before expanding them further. The way I ensure that the content in the article focuses on the most significant developments and works is that I assess what the sources treat as the most significant developments and works (here's where reading the sources ahead of time, making notes, and cross-referencing them really pays off) and then try to reflect that as best as I can (in my own words, of course). In other words, keeping WP:PROPORTION in mind all the time. Two pitfalls that it is easy to fall into is reflecting one's own assessment of what is significant and reflecting other editors' ditto. I try to avoid the former by being aware of my own opinions on the matter in the instances where I have such opinions (in one way, it is actually easier to write articles on topics one does not care all that much about for this very reason) and actively refraining from letting it influence my writing. To avoid the latter, I remove unsourced or inadequately-sourced material rather than trying to find sources for it—if it turns out that the material did indeed belong on the article, I will end up adding something that serves as a replacement for it as a result of my regular writing process anyway. In general, I let the sources dictate the content—the content must not determine what sources are used. How best to cover the topic in a way that reflects the coverage in the sources both in terms of overarching analysis and examples (i.e. works) is not always obvious, and I am not above changing what I have already written over and over until I am content with what I have come up with. The basic building block I use as a starting point is a piece of overarching analysis followed by one or a handful of examples that illustrate the point. Once that is in place it is possible to experiment quite a bit in terms of phrasing, structure, and so on, but most of the time that basic arrangement will do just fine. I try to leave writing the WP:LEAD (besides a single sentence or so) for last, to make sure that it reflects the body of the article (WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY).

I hope this has been helpful. Writing quality articles of this kind—as with any other kind of article—takes some skill, a fair amount of experience, and a lot of time. That being said, it is absolutely a trainable skill. I can certainly say that I am significantly better at it now than I was a few years ago. The end result is also highly dependent on the sources that can be found—I happen to agree with you that Mars in fiction is probably the best of these article that I have written, but that is in large part because it has by far the most extensive and highest-quality literature to draw upon: I happened to find two terrific book sources—Robert Crossley [Wikidata]'s Imagining Mars: A Literary History (which I also created the Wikipedia article for) and Robert Markley's Dying Planet: Mars in Science and the Imagination—early on and was able to use those (in combination with a lot of other sources) to craft an article that both has a lot of depth and a lot of breadth. There have been other cases where I simply haven't found sufficient sources to be able to create a decent-quality article.

As to your question about what to do when something that seems important appears later than the most up-to-date sources, it is worth keeping in mind that Wikipedia will inevitably lag behind scholarship (at least somewhat), which in turn inevitably lags behind the most recent developments in the field. This is a feature rather than a bug, as it is only with hindsight that it is possible to assess the real significance of further developments. That being said, lagging behind too much is of course the same thing as being woefully out of date. If something new appears that is truly important in the context of the overarching topic, it should be possible to find pretty good sources to back that up, even if top-quality sources are not available yet. We also have some leeway when it comes to which examples we choose to illustrate points of overarching analysis, which can sometimes be an appropriate way to include more recent works.

Finally, I might suggest the essay WP:CARGO and the guideline MOS:POPCULT as further reading on how to write articles on topics like these (and how not to do it, for that matter). TompaDompa (talk) 00:04, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you SO much for this thorough breakdown of your process. Understandably, finding a book all about "X topic/person/etc. in fiction" is a great starting point. And finding sources within sources is something that's happened to me often, lol. I have occasionally used Google Scholar, but JSTOR has been far more reliable for me; at least in an academic setting for papers and whatnot.

Cross-referencing sources is something that I've increasingly started doing the past couple of years with some of the article I've worked on; particularly the "Reception" sections for films and video games. Try to find as many sources as possible, jot down everything, and see what overlaps exist.

As for letting the sources guide how the content of the article should look, rather than me having an idea of what it should look and trying to fit the sources in that mold, I actually had a slightly similar discussion over this about a year ago with another user over a potential Silver Banshee article; I wasn't sure how it should be structured. Actually, back when I very first started working on Wikipedia, I did have 1 or 2 articles I worked on where I had this idea of what should be in the article and did everything I could to find sources that, in essence, were all about supporting my argument and including it in the article.

Sidenote: whether articles such as this should be grouped by theme or chronologically is also something that I've wondered myself. I think the latter is something I personally would prefer, probably because it's also easier to look at the texts and how they exist within their historical period; how the culture influenced the fiction.

Anyway. Again, I really appreciate you taking the time to not only respond, but give such a detailed answer. :D Funnily enough, I was just reading sections from the Mars in fiction article about an hour ago to see how Martians are depicted, and it got me thinking about the Martians from DC Comics and how they fall into both the "enlightened" and "evil" camps.

Lastly, I just want to reiterate once more that I really enjoy all of the work you've done on Wikipedia, and I'm excited to see what you work on next. PanagiotisZois (talk) 21:08, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Hey TompaDompa! I've just opened a peer review for The Snow Queen (Kernaghan novel), an adaptation of the famous fairy tale. I really appreciated your comments at Castle in the Sky's FAC last year, and I'd value your feedback, should you have any, for this article. Truthfully, I'm hoping to use it as practice for future nominations of lengthier articles. :) Let me know either way, and I hope you're keeping well! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:23, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Pulp era of science fiction is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of TechnoSquirrel69 -- TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 21:23, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the Polish encyklopedia fantastyki, which, while not ideal, we generally agree to be a passable source, I just noticed they have entries on concepts too. In Polish, and quality vary (with the usual note that some are likely plagiarized from various sources, including Wikipedia, counterbalanced a bit, in theory, by compatible license and professional editorial board, which, if we squint hard enough, can mean that they either got permission from other sources or reviewed the content copied from us and found it ok... yeah, I know, my eyes hurt too). Anyway, the following may be useful to bookmark. Ask me anytime if a topic is there, since machine translation is still not perfect. https://encyklopediafantastyki.pl/index.php?title=Kategoria:Leksykon_science and https://encyklopediafantastyki.pl/index.php?title=Kategoria:Leksykon_science _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:15, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Pulp era of science fiction has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of TechnoSquirrel69 -- TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 03:44, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Random stuff I stumbled upon you may find of interest: [3]. CC-BY license Polish academic encyclopedia article (possible with focus on childhood, since it's from Encyclopedia of Children). I'll be looking at this source more shortly (I just suggested we import it to Polish Wikipedia); but this one I wanted to send your way :) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:29, 25 August 2025 (UTC)