Talk:Mercury in fiction

What is the Distinction Between Old and New Mercury?

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)

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)

Requested move 29 November 2017

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 result of the move request was: not moved.(non-admin closure) Mahveotm (talk) 12:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

---

Mercury in fiction → Mercury (planet) in fiction – Disambiguation and consistency with Category:Mercury (planet) in fiction and Mercury (planet) 165.91.13.72 (talk) 23:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). -- Alex^TW 23:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. Mercury is a disambiguation page with numerous entries. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 02:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Reverse vote to Oppose per examples submitted by Randy Kryn, below: Venus in fiction, Jupiter in fiction, etc. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 15:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose – I don't see why disambiguation is needed in this case. Are there other mercuries relevant to fiction? If disambiguation is desired, why not something more natural, such as Planet Mercury in fiction? Dicklyon (talk) 02:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support move to Planet Mercury in fiction to remove ambiguity. The element mercury does sometimes show up as a significant element in fiction, so clarity is needed, and natural disambiguation is to be preferred over parenthetical disambiguation. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 05:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Dicklyon and per in-site consistency. There are pages for Venus in fiction, Jupiter in fiction, Mars in fiction, Neptune in fiction, Pluto in fiction etc. even though these are names of major gods and goddesses as well as relating to other topics. There is even a relevant template {{Astronomical locations in fiction}}. This present name seems fine and meets the WP criteria for titles, and none of these names are confusing to readers and thus not in need of a descriptor. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Until such time as a Mercury (element) in fiction or Mercury (mythology) in fiction page is created and a disambiguation would be required._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:07, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
• If moving then better to Planet Mercury in fiction In ictu oculi (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

---

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.

---

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mercury in fiction/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Whiteguru (talk · contribs) 00:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Starts GA Review. The review will follow the same sections of the Article. Thank you --Whiteguru (talk) 00:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

 

---

Observations

   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)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

• Article follows MOS for layout and referencing.

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

• Lead is an excellent summary.
• Reference 1 - the archived link goes to a French version.
• Early depictions is well referenced;
• Tidal locking has a good summary of well-known SF on the (supposed) permanent Dayside and Nightside of Mercury
• Modern Depictions seems a bit thin.
• I am not sure of the relevance of section on Vulcan.

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

• Page = "readable prose size"
• WP:BEFORE web search brings https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Mercury%20in%20fiction%22+-wikipedia.org of which https://en-academic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/1617431 gives a list of novels, film and television, games and comics.
• WP:BEFORE books search brings this [result].
• The category Category:Fiction set on Mercury (planet) may also warrant consideration.

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

• NPOV is preserved in this article.

1. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

• Page created on 14 December 2005
• Page has 324 edits by 188 editors
• majority of annual edits occurred in 2021
• page has 34 watchers
• 90 day page views = 3,689 with a daily average of 41 views
• examination of page history shows steady improvements
• page is stable, free from edit-warring and vandalism

1. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

• File:Orbital resonance of Mercury horizontal.gif = Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication.

1. 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.
• A rethink about the scope of this article is necessary. It is somewhat restricted. --Whiteguru (talk) 05:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

 

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

Comments moved to the talk page, where they belong. --Whiteguru (talk) 05:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Whiteguru, this source is a Wikipedia mirror of an earlier version of this article. TompaDompa (talk) 05:35, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

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 here} 10:48, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Transclusion from GA Review Page comments prior to review

Pass-by comments by CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

Hello! I have some feedback on the article as well, which I would share below:

• I see no depiction of mining Mercury for constructing Dyson spheres. I think there might be more information about that
• Having an image in early depictions section is nice, since these graphics has been in public domain
• A brief introduction to the planet would be awesome

That's it for now. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:48, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

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)

@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 here} 11:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

My opinion is that the resources should be focus on Solar System in fiction first, since this has way more sources than individual planets. After the article get , splitting them to individual articles would be much better. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:07, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

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)

Some missing material

https://www.universetoday.com/130109/how-do-we-colonize-mercury/ lists several more recent works, most notably a whole series by Kim Stanley Robinson including The Memory of Whiteness, which includes the same concept "cities that move to stay in the sunrise area" that is here instead credited to later work by Stross. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:17, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

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)

The moving city concept is in The Memory of Whiteness, which was published in 1985. The other KSR works use the same setting. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:33, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I see. I don't think the aim should necessarily be to include the earliest examples, but rather the most important ones (as evidenced by their presence in WP:Reliable sources on the topic), but I have at any rate added a mention of The Memory of Whiteness to the article. TompaDompa (talk) 21:56, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mercury in fiction/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 11:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

• 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)
• 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.)?
• For the record, I have had a look at Talk:Mercury_in_science_fiction/GA1 and Talk:Mercury_in_fiction#Transclusion_from_GA_Review_Page_comments_prior_to_review.
• I don't have much to say here, TompaDompa. Thanks for working on this interesting article. I'll have another look after your replies. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

TompaDompa's replies:

• 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).
• The fourth edition of The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction is the online one, so ISBN doesn't really apply.

Ping BennyOnTheLoose. TompaDompa (talk) 15:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

• 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)
  • @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)
    • Fair enough. Passing for GA. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

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 page or Wikipedia 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.

The result was: promoted by Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Actual 3:2 spin–orbit resonance of Mercury

• ... 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).

Improved to Good Article status by TompaDompa (talk). Self-nominated at 09:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC).

• 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)