Talk:Dyson sphere/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Semi-automatic Peer reviewer

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Person, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)

See this pageAstronomy infoboxes or this Astronomical objects infobox for a potential infobox choice for the article.SriMesh | talk 05:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't able to find an infobox for this article. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 22:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 000 km, use 000 km, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 000 km.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.^[?] Specifically, an example is 000 km.
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.^[?]
• Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.^[?]
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • it has been
  • is considered
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[?]
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• Please provide citations for all of the {{fact}}s. (error messages...)^[?]
• Most importantly however is to remove the tag of unsourced statements July 2007 and September 2007 by providing a citation for these tags, or it will never achieve good article status, and could even be quick failed. Address this first!
• The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, SriMesh | talk 06:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the article. Per your suggestions, I'm working on finding sources. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Re did the peer review as of this date and time, and placed checkmarks and nots on the above semi automatic peer review as to what the program still found. So if it has a checkmark added, the point has been looked after, and the peer review program does not bring it up again. There was one new point added with a new icon added for this point. Good work on the clean up!

• Regarding the citations.
• Cannot refer to another wikipedia article as a source - especially Larry Niven as the entire article contains not one primary source document, reference or citation within it. The entire Larry Niven article may just be made up until citations are used. You may wish to try to google Larry Niven and the associated fact of the Dyson Sphere section to see if any reputable, reliable WWW articles or use other primary source documents which discuss this aspect of your Dyson Sphere article.
• Instead of quoting 3 wikipedia articles in citation 24, it would be better to reword the section including these as wiki links in the prose, and using the WWW for citations on these 3 areas.
• This WWW page Dyson FAQ is used quite a lot with separate citations to various sections on the Dyson FAQ web page. See citation 1,4,5,8,12,20. Are thre any other WWW pages which could be used at these various places to help substantiate claims?
• The paper named "Search for Artificial Stellar Sources of Infra-Red Radiation has a reference at citation number 3, however the first time the article mentions the title of the paper is in section Origin of concept where the citation 3 should be referenced again please. SriMesh | talk 04:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Good article review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused): Dr. Cash 05:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail: SriMesh | talk 21:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The article is in very good shape. I think it meets the Good Article criteria with respect to the completeness criteria, as all significant points are covered by the article. However there are still other issues, based on the previous review, that the article falls short on. Specifically, the references could use more work; there are still some areas where referencing is lacking, or it's possible that it is being cited by a reference at the end of the paragraph, but due to other references in that paragraph, it's not evident that information at the beginning of the paragraph is backed up.

The prose is overall very good, although it gets very technical at times, and could be brought down into plain english a bit better.

The lead is good; it provides a decent summary of the article without going into too much detail.

The 'origin of concept' section could be written better. The second paragraph, citing specific publications, should probably be moved to the beginning, as an intro to the section. It's kind of awkward being mentioned second, after a relatively long first paragraph. The 1959 science paper has no citation on it -- it would help if this had a reference, since it is mentioning a specific publication (including the link to the paper in a footnote would also help the reader find the paper for further research as well).

In the 'other types' section, when talking about the Ringworld, the last sentence mentions, "... a fact recognized by Larry Niven and addressed in sequels to the original novel." However, the "original novel" was not mentioned previously in the section -- the paragraph simply starts talking about Niven's ringworld concept, not noting that it was the subject of a novel (actually about 3-4 novels, if I remember correctly). So the context here is inaccurate.

There are lots of wikilinks in the 'see also' section to links which were previously mentioned in the article text itself, which goes against the manual of style's recommendations. This section can be reduced by reducing it to only major related topics, and topics that were not previously covered by the article.

I think we're getting close here; clear up the citation issues and some minor prose & MOS issues, and I think it can be a GA. Please renominate this once the issues have been addressed. Cheers! Dr. Cash 05:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe I have largely addressed these issues; renominating. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 23:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the issues above have been addressed. The article is now quite informative and interesting, and meets the Good Article criteria. It can be promoted now. Good work! Dr. Cash 05:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! :) —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Oppose Oppose this article needs accomplish two things before I can consider a Support

• 1) It does need some help as far as it's prose, and writing style
• 2) But the biggest problem, and totally inexcusable problem is the citation of verifiable references. It sucks big time! Most of the references comes from two places. http://www.islandone.org.... trys to look legit, and might actually be, but the url link is not (See Freemann J. Dyson (1960). "Search for Artificial Stellar Sources of Infra-Red Radiation". Science. 131: 1667–1668. doi:10.1126/science.131.3414.1667.) this comprises 6 page citations, and http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/dysonFAQ.html which comprises 10 citations. These are enthusiast sites, but they make up 16 out of the 37 citations, and most of the actual content featured in this article. My primary interest is in the Kardashev scale and I would really like to link to the Dyson shell article but I find it's hard to justify the wikilink when nearly half of the "verified" resources are posted on unscientific credentialed sites. And there's no links to Dyson's original work:

Dyson, F. J., Search for Artificial Stellar Sources of Infrared Radiation, Science, vol. 131, pp. 1667-1668, 1959

Dyson, F. J., The Search for Extraterrestrial Technology, in Perspectives in Modern Physics (Essays in Honor of Hans Bethe), R. E. Marshak (Editor), John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1966

why aren't these cited??!?!? I'm complete baffled, to the direction the community has chosen to take with this page.--Sparkygravity (talk) 02:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't argue against the references needing work. However

1. Links to web publication of references are not a requirement.
2. If you examine the links to existing sources - specifically the island one site - it is reprinting material from the journal Science which is about as good as it gets for peer reviewed material. The material is valid, but if better links can be found they should be substituted, or the links can be removed completely and make them plain unlinked citations to the original paper, see point #1
3. Since you have located papers pertaining to the topic, why not add the references yourself, where you think the papers in question support (or possibly refute) points in the article? "The Community" which has apparently gone off in a direction you think inappropriate (and it may be) does include you.

--Vedexent (talk) - 03:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You makes some good points but I do want to respond.

1. I can understand why web-linking publications isn't required. But I'd rather have information, not linked, than allow it's validity be called into question. Now this is a personal opinion, of course, but I would like to know how others feel about it.
2. I really like the information they've reprinted, and I actually trust it's content. However it's not from a media newsgroup, source, magazine, etc. So the question of whether the material has been altered can still be but into question. It's been reprinted by a group of POV enthusiasts(good natured, kind, rational, and well-meaning ofcourse, but still a high potential for POV), rather than a neutral source. Additionally it's unclear about what copyrights laws surround the work. I don't know if it's copyrighted, I have no idea what the laws are surrounding an example like this one... and I don't know if I want to encourage wikipedians to overlook that when citing reprinted material.
3. I can't argue with you on that point, I agree with you completely. I believe that if you see a problem, you should do your best to fix it... but currently I am up to my heels with Kardashev scale and finding and referencing a replacement for the possible 16 out of 37 questionable citations is a bit more than I can chew right now.... hopefully soon though. I would really like this article to be FA quality.--Sparkygravity (talk) 13:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Star Trek reference

I'm sure this subject has been brought up before, and perhaps even deleted before, however I found no reference to it within the discussion or article. Fans of Star Trek The Next Generation might recall an entire episode based on the Dyson Sphere, including references to Freeman Dyson. While science fiction in nature, and not adding to the relevance of the topic, pop culture references such as these are often mentioned in Wikipedia articles as an anchor in 20th and 21st century vernacular for understanding. Why not mention it here? would there be any problem with that? 67.182.84.151 (talk) 07:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Because there's already a separate article dedicated to Dyson spheres in fiction, and it's prominently mentioned there.  Xihr  20:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Dyson Sphere Diagram.svg

Shouldn't this be moved out of the lead position, as the article itself indicates that a shell is physically impossible, a fact of which Dyson himself was well aware. (No less than Cosmic Variance appears to have been thrown off by this.) Surely Image:Dyson Swarm.GIF would better illustrate the concept, no? --99.225.218.183 (talk) 04:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

1 AU

Why are all the examples and calculations for a sphere of 1AU in radius? Who cares if the sphere gets the same isolation as the earth, you can't live on the inside what with the whole falling into the sun due to gravity thing. A sphere that was built closer would use less matter, and would enjoy an increasingly large ratio of solar radiation pressure versus surface area, which might help support the sphere. Could this force push the material requirements into the non hypothetical realm or does the increased gravity from being closer negate the gains from this approach?70.70.145.85 (talk) 06:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

just did some fast calculations, at 3 700 000 km from the center of the sun (roughly 3 000 000km from the surface) the gravity on the outside due to the sun would be roughly 1g, that would seem to be a good starting point, and likely much more useful if the Dyson sphere was being used for habitation as well as power generation. However, I'd assume that it would be pretty hot this close, so maybe we'd need a different magical material that is impervious to heat as opposed to impervious to pressure. Or really good active cooling. Well, its a thought at least. 70.70.145.85 (talk) 06:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Both gravity and radiation pressure vary as the inverse square of the distance from the sun, so that drops out of the equation for the mass per area that can be supported by radiation. One AU is arbitrary, but it's familiar, and it works well enough for the general concept. If you were developing a particular design, the optimal radius would probably different.

—WWoods (talk) 14:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Well wouldn't a civilization that actually had a working, efficient dyson sphere have the energy to cool/shield the inside to habitable levels, or as i imagine create and maintain an atmosphere on the outside. I mean the sun puts out a whole lot of energy and as needy as we biological creatures are we have managed to survive on a meager fraction of that. Plus the technology necessary to accomplish its construction is so far beyond our current capabilities that we have no idea how we would have changed or the biological needs of a different race that produced one.98.28.114.217 (talk) 05:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Best reference

Perhaps the best reference discussing in detail the math behind why a sphere doesn't work but why a shell of orbiting "satellites" or "habitats" will is:

K. G. Suffern, "Some Thoughts on Dyson Spheres", [i]Proc. Astronomical Society of Australia[/i], 3(2):177-179 (1977).

If someone wants to modify the Dyson Shell page to include this and needs a copy of the article for review, please send me an email request (robert.bradbury@gmail.com).

The "solid" sphere image should be thrown out entirely because it leaves a misimpression that a "sphere" would actually work when it will not. Anders Sandberg's pages, some I have had created, and a print by M.C. Escher's "Concentric Rinds" print all are better examples of what a Dyson shell would look like.

One cannot have the orbiting shells too close to the sun because the laws of physics involving blackbody radiation (Wein's law & the Stefan-Boltzmann law) would require that they have very high temperatures (witness all the discussion regarding "hot Jupiter" exoplanets that orbit very close to their stars). You have to remember that a complete shell has to get rid of ~3.86 x 10^26 W of energy (for our sun) and it is the surface area of the shell (tied to the distance from the sun) that determines the temperature. A smaller shell equates to a higher temperature. If you shield a near-sun shell using mirrors, you run the risk of heating up the sun, presumably making it hotter and causing it to expand and/or reflecting the energy back onto other satellites. I don't know at what point this process would run amok, but I suspect it wouldn't take very long.

It is generally agreed among physicists that a solid sphere will not work. Dyson himself even knew this because in the letters in response to his original article someone complained that a sphere, even a rotating sphere, could not support itself against gravity. Dyson's response was that he knew this and that his and that he was envisioning a large number of orbiting satellites (or O'Neil type habitats though the concepts for those would be developed by O'Neil much later). If you carefully review Dyson's original article he *never* uses the word "sphere", he always uses the word "shell".

It might also be useful to add a reference to the Wikipedia discussion of Matrioshka_brain, in which the Dyson shell concept is expanded to include nested Dyson shells which can operate from very near the sun out to beyond the orbit of Pluto.

Robert (talk) 17:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

---

I don't know whether it is appropriate to mention this on the talk page, but I was at a small reception for Dr. Dyson Thursday 3 December 2009, where he was asked about the so-called Dyson sphere. He said that he originally posed the concept of anomalous infrared sources as a signature of advanced civilizations. The later observation of many natural infrared sources ( stars in the early stages of formation, or in gas clouds) made that an unreliable detection method. He attributed the ideas of spheres or shells (as unitary objects) as misinterpretation by careless science fiction authors. BTW, at 85 he is still charming, intelligent, and lively.

KeithLofstrom (talk) 08:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Dyson Effect on the Heliosphere

Any kind of Dyson Ring/Sphere/Nutcase (lol) will significantly reduce the heliosphere or probably weak it too much for the sun protecting its surrounds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.140.33.63 (talk) 17:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

"To put this in perspective[...]"

...Fail. Just fail.

To put this in perspective, the statement in the text is about as effective as comparing a purple ostrich bonnet to a snizzlemork of hundybat paste.

That reminded me of the possessed accountant's meaningless boasts in Ghostbusters. Anyone got a way we can discuss the difference in power requirements and the power that would be gathered by a Dyson shell in more meaninful terms? That is, for all practical intents and purposes, it should not include "x10" or any exponents for any reason.

J.M. Archer (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Bow shock

"Lastly, the shell would be vulnerable to the material in interstellar space that is currently being deflected by the Sun's Bow shock." Really? The bow shock is still practically vacuum to what people would call 'materials'. (physical objects) 88.159.72.240 (talk) 18:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The sun doesn't have a Bow Shock. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bow_shock ````

Respect for a living physicist and mathematician

Freeman Dyson may deserve better than this quote:

"The concept of the Dyson sphere was the result of a thought experiment by physicist and mathematician Freeman Dyson, when he theorized that ..."

as if this were truly comparable to his thinking about Feynman diagrams or to his rigourous work on the stability of matter (theorizing) in terms of the Pauli exclusion principle, itself a central notion in an impressive and weel-confirmed (if incomplete) theoretical framework.

Compare his notion of this spehere arising due to energy demands with the work in behavioral economics theory which merited a Nobel Memorial prize in economics for a non-economist (by training.)

Wikipedia would be better served as suggested in a note above concerning handling sci-fi notions in an encyclopedia.

Dyson's views on religion are not physics or mathematics contributions, nor was this, even if published in Science. A similar issue arose for Ossian translations as German literature: where published is not the issue. There may be a lesson in "Ossian" persisting among German Romantics long after being debunked in the UK. I do concede the historical fact that James Macpherson went on to some small success in British politics. Of course, had he faked discovering "early science fiction" predating both Bacon and Voltaire ...

I believe the articles on Ossian are far more detailed than the articles on their author. In Dyson's case, one might hope articles on his real achievements out-weight those on his notions which happen to be followed by enthusiasts (fans?) rather than historians of science.

G. Robert Shiplett 13:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Would a Dyson Sphere cause warming of a planet?

The parenthetical phrase "(regardless of the effects of planetary warming caused by the input of energy to the planet)" in the lead section assumes that a civilization capable of building a Dyson Sphere would still inhabit a planet and just use the sphere for energy collection. This is a ridiculous assumption. The parenthetical phrase should be removed. Fartherred (talk) 10:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The section on Dyson swarm indicates the use of solar power satellites and space habitats to make up the swarm. I doubt there is any reliable source suggesting a Dyson Sphere supplying energy to a planet. Fartherred (talk) 11:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Why do you consider that a "ridiculous assumption"? I rather see it the opposite way: Why would (the majority of) future humans with such immense technological abilities want to live in zero gravity and with hardly more (solar) energy available per area than on Earth, when they could live on a planet with gravity and have immensely more energy per area available than a Dyson-sphere-inhabiting species? And a Dyson sphere just collecting energy would presumably be much easier to build than a habitable one.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

A Question about the diameter of Dyson sphere

I have a question about the radius of Dyson spheres in the ring that is told in the first picture: it says that the orbit is 1 AU in radius, collectors are 1.0×10^7 km in diameter, spaced 3 degrees from center to center around the orbital circle.

However I caculated and found which was likely an error: 1AU*2*(3.1416)/120=7832944 Km, it's unlikely to put a 10000000 km-in-diameter sphere in this space.

123.192.97.66 (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

why did I revert edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dyson_sphere&oldid=187678049

Because it's not based on fantasy!! Freeman Dyson proposed that we could use the idea to look for unexplainable but high index infra red light. Observing such an phenomenon might lead to the discovery of a Dyson sphere and of extraterrestrials.

The concept is impossible because of either the laws of physics or material resource availability or technological limitations. ... Please add new section, I suggest the title Criticism and be sure to cite those sources ;) Thank you!

In response to It is also impossible given current or credible projected future human capabilities (even into the far distant future). This isn't cited, and it doesn't matter because whether we could build a Dyson's sphere is a moot point. You may be right, but it's about whether or not it's possible, the article is about whether or not a alien species could accomplish the task, or any advanced civilization could. This article is not Earth centered! Science does not exist fulfill humans POV (point of view).

Finally, there's a very important word in the first sentence of this article, a word that describes, a word that the article could not do without, a word that should calm all naysayers, that word is hypothetical. Thanks for reading--Sparkygravity (talk) 14:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It's entirely based on fantasy.

Not a single shred of evidence currently exists for the existence of or theoretical physical possibility of such a structure, whilst the overwhelming weight of scientific knowledge and understanding voids its theoretical possibility upon multiple grounds.

The theoretical objection you are thinking of (ratio of gravitational attraction to pressure from sunlight with respect to currently known materials) only applies to Dyson Spheres located in our solar system. Other stars have different luminosities per mass. There is no theoretical objection to the idea of a Dyson Sphere itself. For further information and calculations, see How many people can our solar system support? --DouglasReay (talk) 08:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

One can propose just about anything way out and call it hypothetical, but in the absence of a detailed study let alone an even remotely comprehensive technical analysis showing how fundamental physical laws and problems can be overcome this concept remains fantasy and it needs to be stated clearly and upfront.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. Where are the peer reviewed scientific studies? I can quickly think of literally dozens of physical limitations that would prevent construction, but feel free to include them in a new section yourself spelling out in detail for the intellectually or reality challenged. Its impossible given all we know about the world unless proven otherwise. Perhaps you could compose a message to be sent upon the discovery of one of these structures asking how the constructors managed to change the laws of physics to enable such a structure: your descendants will be waiting forever.

A technologically exponentiating human species, shifted to the far distant future, is for the purposes of determining possibility, essentially the same as any other 'advanced civilization' past current or future.

As for the word, well, my word or perhaps i should say my lord, because it can be used in a similar fashion to describe the fantasies about the existence of gods, and there is also no evidence for the existence or possibility of them either, except in this case divination of deities is being replaced with searches for fundamentally impossible structures. For all i know a new 'advanced civilization' may arise every second tuesday, but it seems to me that such hypotheses about dyson spheres are simply a pseudo scientific reforming of infantile religious delusion and fantasy existing to support an emotional need such as the denial of the reality of death.

--Theo Pardilla 09:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

There are many serious scholarly articles discussing the concept.[1].Ultramarine (talk) 10:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

There are many things that remain only hypothetical because we humans don't know everything, but scientists work on discovering the truth, they aren't trying to make up stuff. Just because we as humans study science doesn't mean we're experts at anything... we're utterly naive to the realities of the universe, in other words we don't know squatt. However, scientist do come up with models of the universe, and designs of industry that don't exist and do there best to prove, or build them. Currently we can't build a Dyson's sphere, so we look for one instead. We can't travel interstellar space so Seti scientists look for those that can. We theorize about Einstein-Rosen Bridges, even though they don't exist on anywhere but on paper. Hundreds if not thousands of physicists study string theory, but there are several obsticales and opinions that suggest string theory will never be proven with empirical evidence (you can look under the section labeled problems and controversy). It's great that you can think of a dozens of limitations from Dyson's spheres being a reality, but wikipedia isn't the place to prove us wrong. This isn't a place for personal opinion, it's not a place for OR. If you manage to do convince Freeman Dyson, John Barrow, Michio Kaku, and Nikolai Kardashev then by that time there will be enough evidence in science journals, and periodicals that you'll be able to quote yourself... but under an new section titled ' Critism ' because even at that point there will still be those that disagree with you.

Why don't you start a new section anyway, you can help the article quite a bit. Drum up some critical references, people that believe that Dyson's spheres are a crock, complete fantasy and contribute to the article?(one catch: they must be from reliable sources though... no blogs, or things like that)--Sparkygravity (talk) 14:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

"Hypothetical" continued...

I don't mean to rain on anyone's parade here, but something's been bothering me for a while about this article. The fourth word in this article is "hypothetical".

There's nothing hypothetical about a Dyson sphere. A Dyson sphere's pure fantasy. See the difference? "Hypothetical" means "supposed", "highly conjectural" and "not well supported by available evidence"; "hypothesis" involves the concept of "highly probable". A Dyson sphere is none of these things. It's not even a proposition. It is pure fantasy.

Furthermore, on the point of the Dyson shell - something no one (not even Mr Dyson) seems to have thought of is...even if we could build one...the Solar wind would burst it immediately. Duh! Oh, and no, there isn't enough matter in any star system to build a shell around the entire system. And even if there was - why would you need so much energy?!

And, finally - it takes months to put a cable under the Atlantic. No matter what technology we invent - how're you gonna put a wall around a star?

Not "hypothesis"...but "pure fantasy". See the difference?

Right. That was my rant. Feel better now. BigSteve (talk) 19:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Recent reversion

A Dyson sphere is a fictional object, and so is Hyperspace. The Dyson sphere descibed is also a unique type of Dyson sphere, the comment removed is to focus on the type of Dyson sphere mroe than the incident of its occurance. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I was the user who removed the content; I was on a mobile device and neglected to log on. I removed it primarily because it was unsourced and unwikilinked (I've just corrected the latter issue for you); but also because this page covers the theoretical structure and concepts of the Dyson Sphere, this page covers Dyson Spheres in popular culture. I can't see how the Halo-universes' use of the Dyson sphere contributes to this page, Hyperspace in science fiction is a nebulous story mechanic that doesn't have any practical scientific or engineering value to contribute to our understanding of Dyson's Sphere mechanics — though you may be referring to Minkowski space or another hyperspace concept; in either case your contribution doesn't make that clear. If you think the Ghosts of Onyx book's use of the Dyson sphere does make a significant and original contribution to the concept, I can't object to its addition over the popular culture page; but at the moment the sentence doesn't clarify what it adds or how. Perhaps you may want to expand your explanation of the concept? Nigholith (talk) 17:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I've added a bit more to clarify. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry that I blundered into this without looking at the discussion or revision history. My deletion was undone so now we can have the discussion that should have happened before I decided to let the text remain or delete it. I was unaware that anyone was seriously suggesting that the concept of a Dyson sphere was physically impossible or just science fiction of the fantasy type. From SUPRAMUNDANE PLANETS by Paul Birch in the "Journal of The British Interplanetary Society", Vol.44, pp169-182, 1991, Birch says that a supramundane habitat is a habitat supported above a planet, star or other massive body.(as cited in the article as a copy of http://www.paulbirch.net/SupramundanePlanets.zip) This was not self published and is a serious work that aims to show that it is physically possible to maintain a shell around such bodies by holding it up with magnetic force containing rings that move at super orbital velocity through a vacuum. If there are serious works that claim to show that this is impossible, then that can be presented in the article. It does not turn a serious scientific work into mere fiction. Freeman Dyson's letter in Science originally suggesting the idea of capturing and using all of a star's energy output was not fiction either. People seriously searched through infrared images of the sky to see if something could be identified as a likely Dyson sphere. I am at a loss to understand why it is being referred to as fiction instead of a hypothetical structure. I did not see the citations to support this view. Should I look again? - Fartherred (talk) 05:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

In that case, I approve of the content removal. The content in question is not of a scientific nature. Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. - Fartherred (talk) 11:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Gravitational interaction with a Dyson shell

The article says about a Dyson shell: "Such a shell would have no net gravitational interaction with its englobed star (see shell theorem), and could drift in relation to the central star." This is indeed straightforwardly the case for a spherically symmetric mass inside the sphere, but what about an arbitrary, non-spherically-symmetric mass distribution? --JorisvS (talk) 00:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

And what happens if one breaks the spherical symmetry of the Dyson shell itself? --JorisvS (talk) 00:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Bad things, depending on the rigidity of the shell and what you used to break it with.--Auric talk 01:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I meant with the gravitational interaction between the shell and things inside it. No destroying the shell involved, just breaking its symmetry... What happens then? --JorisvS (talk) 09:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

This is what happens if the symmetry of a Dyson sphere is altered by a mass shift along the surface of the sphere: If you imagine the Dyson sphere as having lines of longitude and latitude and mass is moved along the lines of longitude from the south pole toward the north pole the sphere will move toward the south is such a way as to keep the center of mass in the same place, but not for long. The new arrangement having mass concentrated in the northern part of the sphere will cause net gravitational attraction to the central star which will cause the sphere to start to move south. To put this into the article, a reliable source would have to be found. - Fartherred (talk) 11:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Reclassification of the article away from "Natural Sciences"

Given the speculative nature of the idea, the numerous engineering and practical difficulties which it would present, I think the article should either be reclassified as a fictitious construct (as opposed to in the "Natural Sciences" section), or a more compelling discussion on the technical difficulties should be included. In particular, there seems to be no mention as to why one would expect intelligent life to deploy this form of technology over more flexible alternatives such as variants of nuclear power.

The fact that the idea has been published in "Science" does not automatically mean that it is technologically relevant.

150.203.179.56 (talk) 01:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

There are reliable sources that show a Dyson sphere is a seriously considered scientific concept. Consider this website. Scientists would not have used the IRAS satellite to search for Dyson spheres if it was merely a "fictitious construct". The article is like that about magnetic monopoles which also have never been documented to exist. The point is not whether some editors on Wikipedia think the Dyson sphere is worthy of being considered a scientific concept or not, but whether reliable sources consider it so. We have not let science fiction enthusiasts take over the rocket article with references to all of the nonsensical devices that appeared in science fiction as rockets. Those with only interests in fictional devices for which they wish to use the same name as the Dyson sphere should take their concerns to Dyson spheres in popular culture and that talk page. - Fartherred (talk) 19:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

There was an error in putting this article into WikiProject Science Fiction with a template. I will move that template to the popular culture article's talk page. - Fartherred (talk) 20:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

100% percent of a star's energy ouput? Well... no

2 things a shell is unlikely to contain: neutrinos & gravitational radiation. Yes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.146.67 (talk) 06:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Reference #1 is a dead link

Is http://starshipconf.ucsd.edu temporarily down or for good? Vbond (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Pity Party

Sorry to throw a lot of dirt on the fire here, but outside of the stability argument, another aspect to the infeasibility of a D sphere is the null gravitational field on the inside of the shell. No thing could be on the inside, assuming near perfect symmetry. All things standing on teh surface would fall to the star. Sorry, just thought that it should be mentioned in the article, as did not see it, also, sorry that i cant document this or myself correctly to save my life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.180.192 (talk) 07:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Not true at all. For an object inside a uniform spherical shell, the gravity to all the elements of the shell add up to zero, that is true, but all of those elements are subject to gravity of other elements, as well as anything else inside or outside the sphere. Nothing "stands on the (inner) surface", though hypothetically an object can be suspended on cables from the sail surface. KeithLofstrom (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Dynamic support of shell variant Dyson Sphere

This has to do with the support of a Dyson Sphere by magnetic attraction to rings that orbit a star at super-orbital speeds in evacuated tubes. The article claims: "The arrangement of such tracks suffers from the same difficulties as arranging the orbits of a Dyson swarm". This is a false statement. The orbits of solar collectors in a Dyson swarm need to avoid shadowing each other excessively to efficiently collect power. The super-orbital rings do not need to avoid shadowing each other. There ought to be a reliable source for this false statement if it is to be kept in the article. So I am tagging it {{citation needed}}. Fartherred (talk) 09:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, one can support with dynamic rings, but that is unstable. Bulges grow, very rapidly, and the system is far too large for tension members and actuators to stabilize it. See the stability math in this 1985 launch loop paperKeithLofstrom (talk) 17:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

please explain lack of link to WP article

Please explain the lack of a link to solar wind in this article.

The solar wind is interesting, but the dynamic pressure is miniscule compared to the gravitational, light pressure, and inertial forces in a Dyson shell. Solar wind at 1 AU varies considerably, but the pressure is 1 to 6 nanopascals, whereas absorbed light pressure is 4.6 micropascals, 1000 times stronger, which in turn is much smaller than the gravitational force on shells more than a few micrometers thick.

You must do the actual math with real measured numbers to understand this, but since most people don't understand numbers, an analogy for the innumerate: Consider the effect of wind on the ocean. The makes waves, it even bunches the oceans up a meter or two on one side of a vast basin, but it doesn't lift whole oceans out of their beds. Vast solid objects like mountains and continents are not measurably shifted by wind pressure, though they are eroded over geological time - as a Dyson shell would be. KeithLofstrom (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Given the recent space achievement of reaching the Heliopause, I find this peculiar. Is a link to Magnetosphere also lacking?

Dyson's important ideas were sometimes backed with rigourous thinking and proofs: no Dysonian heretic should be shy to add links to solar wind and Magnetosphere even if only in See Also.

I think part of a shell would choose to break away and sail off (the article mentions "solar sails".)

Personally, I do not rank this as a "thought experiment" in the tradition to which Dyson rightly belongs as a physicist. I place it with his view of how little harm religion has done, as the women stoned by their own brother throwing the first rock have not yet communicated their views to him as have not yet the desperate widows who threw themselves onto funeral pyres, nor the women who were kept illiterate by religion or sold so as not to have dowries or drown at birth ... as all technically advanced hominids develop a shell of culture woven with myth. Even Taoism became a religion ... perhaps due to roads connecting cities.

If you believe that technically advanced beings abandon their home planet and can be found by infrared signature, then these should turn up eventually where habitable exo-planets are expected but not found ... among the now estimated billions of such planets in this galaxy. Or we could wait to approach Andromeda for a better view ... ;-)

In the natural world, would these shells invite predation? Parasitism? Epiphytes?

All in good humour, if not in good time (space permitting ...)

G. Robert Shiplett 13:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

A really poor summary

The purpose of an encyclopedia article should be to present the facts. The facts are a "sphere" cannot exist and this was pointed out in letters to Dyson after his original Science article. He made a point of qualifying that he never intended it to be conceived of as a "sphere" but was instead a set of orbiting satellites, i.e. a "shell". This entire topic should be removed and a "Dyson Sphere" should be documented as a fictional construct of the Science News writer who misinterpreted what Dyson was saying. I have this literature online for anyone who would like to review it. A "Dyson Sphere" is entirely a *fictional concept* which cannot exist (at least using known materials) in reality. The entire contents should be moved to a "Dyson Shell" topic where it is made completely clear that a "sphere" cannot easily exist using known physics. A shell of orbiting satellites however is completely feasible. Any and all pictures portraying a "sphere" should be removed and the reasons why a true sphere using "classical" materials is not viable should be documented. The mistaken concept of a "Dyson Sphere" which is largely impossible should be replaced with more reasonable concepts, e.g. Dyson Shells or Matrioshka Brains. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertBradbury (talk • contribs) 09:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

A shell of orbiting satellites is no more feasible. In fact, it's physically impossible for any number of reasons. Let's pretend Earth is Satellite 1 in this system, and let's call the plane of Earth's revolution Layer Zero. Now imagine another layer, parallel to Zero, either "above" or "below" it (it doesn't matter). Can a satellite trace an orbit that makes this layer its plane of revolution? Shocking answer: no. Because it would be orbiting a point above or below the star if it did. That doesn't get into problems of gravitational attraction between the shell components, since we're not talking about a true sphere. It's a fictional concept either way. You're just defending your fiction at the expense of someone else's. --76.224.64.68 22:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The concept is popularly known as a "Dyson sphere", despite the fact that the real idea was the Dyson shell or Dyson swarm. Thus, the article is at Dyson sphere. The lead paragraph clearly describes the variants, so I don't know what your problem with the article is. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 01:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The article is a hodgepodge - some useful information with primary literature references, more references to opinionated and math-challenged websites, and a lot of stuff apparently created de novo for this Wikipedia article without citation. Sadly, most of the comments here are even less informed than the de novo speculation. What to do? Write more primary literature. Which I am doing, come back in a decade, then we can produce a Wikipedia article with proper content and citations. For now, the hodgepodge is probably the least bad thing we can do.

Speculative engineering and technological projection is difficult to write about - Moore's Law is an example - because speculation, architecture, design, implementation, deployment, consumption, and evaluation often stretch across a century or more. Talented individuals work along the entire spectrum, and outsiders without imagination, stuck at "consumption", have no clues about (or sympathy for) the work that preceded consumption. Intel hires science fiction writers to help them with speculation - then work through each stage, transforming some of those speculations into products. Of course Dyson shells will turn out quite differently from anything written here - half a dozen stages haven't been accomplished yet. But if you only want to know about consumables, go to Walmart, not Wikipedia. KeithLofstrom (talk) 17:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Braided Dyson shells?

Has anyone explored the concept of a Dyson sphere in which the orbiting objects are allowed to push on one another? For example, as an object orbits it uses a superconducting magnet or the like to remain a constant distance from each continual stream of objects orbiting in a different plane that it encounters, weaving back and forth from the star. It would seem like such a scheme could ensure complete capture of all sunlight from the star with not very much waste over a solid shell, with minimal energy usage, but engineering it would be formidable (i.e. if you come up with something I'd love to read about it). Wnt (talk) 16:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• • • • I admit to being a bit frustrated by the people who keep saying a (Dyson Sphere) isn't feasible. The concept is not limited to one particular engineering design -- rather, it is the idea of capturing a larger and larger percentage of a host star's energy output. A rigid sphere is not the only version. The idea can be implemented by an array of reflectors -- and such an array could be built piecemeal and (this is the important point) they do not have to all be at the same distance from the host star. Imagine that you place one large (and by large we mean taking up a significant portion of a given orbit) array at point X. You don't place the next one exactly at X -- you place it at X + e. And the third one is at X+e+e etc. To be more concrete, you place one in orbit slightly behind the Earth at 1.05 AU. The next at 1.15 AU. The next at 1.35 AU....all the way out to 10 AU or more. The net impact on any far-away observer would be virtually the same as if you had built a shell or a swarm at the same distance...because more and more of the host star's output would be captured. It doesn't matter what the exact engineering is inside the host star's solar system -- what matters is that you could detect such a scheme by the gradual diminishing of the star's output *as seen by outside observers*...etc. The fact that people are talking about the star in the news today Oct 2015 -- that on a 750 day cycle has what appears to be enormouse bodies blocking up to 15 and then 22 percent of its output temporarily....might indicate that the "aliens" have put up at least two (or more) such structures around their star. Stop nitpicking the idea and remember that the concept is not a particular implemenation but the IDEA of doing it. Chesspride 172.164.0.102 (talk) 06:48, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• • • Let me be more blunt -- if we (humans) put up three (3) reflector arrays around our sun, each one just a few miles long....that would "count" as a type of Dyson Sphere (Swarm)...yes? And if we kept adding arrays every decade...until we captured an equivalent of "one earth" additional Solar energy (i.e. we count the solar energy captured by the earth as a whole as X and our reflector arrays reach the point where they capture an equivalent amount, thus giving our civilization 2x or 2Earth's worth of solar energy)...that would not only be noticeable, but it would be an effective start to a Dyson sphere (swarm). The idea that it has to approach 100 percent of the star's output is when you reach TYPE II civilization level -- not when you start the project :) So please don't tell me that it is "impossible" to put up a few asteroid-sized energy reflector arrays -- there are plenty of stable orbits throughout the solar system where...such arrays would persist once launched. Is it feasible to collect 100 percent? Who knows. But 1 percent more? 5 percent more? You bet. And we should be doing it. Chesspride 172.164.0.102 (talk) 07:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

KIC 8462852

Is this addition really appropriate? The original paper from the Royal Astronomical Society doesn't make any mention of any extra-terrestrial explanation, never mind a dyson sphere. The speculation is coming from media coverage of one astronomer (Jason Wright of Penn State) who wasn't involved in the original discovery. Pongley (talk) 15:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Correct, and this is the way you would expect scientific research to proceed. One team finds an anomaly and another one with different equipment and approach does a follow up. Jason Wright is not a crackpot giving interviews at "Mother Jones" or "InfoWars". He clarified it is extremely unlikely it is a Dyson sphere and wants to rule it out scientifically; a normal procedure. It is relevant enough for a brief mention in that context. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Lots of astronomers have given their opinions on what it could be. Why is his more relevant to an encyclopaedia just because the media picked up on it? Pongley (talk) 15:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Also see recent edits about KIC 8462852 at [2]. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Radiation pressure

I am pretty sure that a Dyson shell WOULD be stable around a sufficiently bright object. For example, if the star drifts towards the edge of the Dyson shell, then the radiation pressure would press HARDER against the surface it was approaching, and SOFTER against the surface it was moving away from. This would press the Dyson shell along, and keep it away from the star. 32ieww (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Dyson bubble: sail density versus radiation pressure

The wording is counter-intuitive, that the density of a sail would be 0.78 g/m2, because the radiation pressure is not a constant. It varies according to your distance to the star. But in the linked reference the argument was given that as you move closer to the star, radiation pressure increases, but so does gravity, and so these effects cancel. By the way, radiation pressure of a variable star is not constant, and our sun is slightly variable. It would improve the article to state both of these facts. -- 135.23.66.249 (talk) 01:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dyson sphere. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060627074700/http://www.paulbirch.net/SupramundanePlanets.zip to http://www.paulbirch.net/SupramundanePlanets.zip
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150415115307/http://archive.seti.org/pdfs/Shostak-spring2009-EnS.pdf to http://archive.seti.org/pdfs/Shostak-spring2009-EnS.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

pun: die soon sphere

If a civilization bases its hopes on a Dyson sphere, it will certainly die soon! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4100:6F00:E1EC:675D:2BEA:9B91 (talk) 14:00, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Form of energy collection?

Is it specified in any of the sources how the star's energy is actually harvested? I would have thought of solar panels, obviously, but this isn't mentioned anywhere. --Felix Tritschler (talk) 18:28, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Birch Worlds inclusion

There are many users that want to include Birch Worlds in the section, although there are no serious sources that include the Birch World - the three main sources are a Stellaris Mod, the game Spore, and the Simple English Dictionary. Should we thus include Birch Worlds in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.88.72.203 (talk) 00:08, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Merger with the article "Dyson spheres in popular culture"

The article Dyson spheres in popular culture should be a section in this article since neither of them are extremely large and both talk about Dyson Spheres, with the main article of DS having a small section that redirects into the Dyson spheres in popular culture article. Kaitary (talk) 09:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

This topic is also being discussed in the talk page of the 'Dyson spheres in popular culture' article, so I figured it would be productive and good if anyone working on either article could give their stance on this.Kaitary (talk) 09:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Dyson spheres in popular culture has now been merged into this article, per consensus on the talk page. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Removal of orginal research

Following on from the Good article reassessment, I'm now planning to remove the remaining large chunks of unsourced and poorly sourced speculative text from this article. The objectionable material has been tagged for long enough, and now has to go. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:17, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Star Trek

P Aculeius (and others): Do any sources on the topic of this article—Dyson spheres—discuss the Star Trek episode? See WP:PROPORTION: 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. (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). "On the subject" is key here; it is not sufficient for sources on Star Trek (or that specific episode) to mention it. TompaDompa (talk) 13:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

You have clearly become a gatekeeper for this article, having deleted the same mention on previous occasions for various reasons. This is clearly a notable occurrence; the preceding paragraph mentions some relatively obscure novels that, with all page views combined, don't have half the views of the article about this one episode of Star Trek. It's the only example cited in the section that actually contains a three-dimensional, visual depiction of a Dyson sphere; all of the others are "mentions" or appearances in novels. The fact that Freeman Dyson himself watched and commented on the episode would seem to place its notability in reference to the concept beyond question. So it utterly baffles me that you're complaining—within minutes of the paragraph being re-added, with multiple citations to reliable, verifiable sources, since that was your reason for deleting it when someone else mentioned it in the past—that doing so now is giving undue weight to the source simply because television is popular culture! I'd love to see what other experienced editors have to say about this, because this complaint is really over-the-top! P Aculeius (talk) 13:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The visual depiction of a Dyson Sphere in this particular Star Trek TNG episode is one of the more notable references in fiction to the subject of the article. I appreciate that on Wikipedia there can be a lot of shoehorning 'popular culture references' into articles where it doesn't belong. In this case where the topic is a conceptual object which hasn't had too many fictional depictions it seems entirely appropriate however. That said, the sourcing could be improved. In particular there shouldn't be a cite to Wikipedia, that's a circular reference. ChiZeroOne (talk) 13:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree 1,000% - FlightTime (open channel) 14:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Where is it cited to Wikipedia? Some of the citations include author and episode links to Wikipedia articles, but the sources are the episode, novel, series guide, and interview with Freeman Dyson. The links are there because the series, episode, authors, and the magazine that sponsored the interview are all notable, and have their own articles; but those articles aren't the sources cited. P Aculeius (talk) 14:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

one of the more notable references in fiction By what metric? The metric that counts here is WP:PROPORTION, i.e. the coverage in sources on the topic at hand. TompaDompa (talk) 14:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, I have removed this several times, each and every time because it does not have proper sourcing for this article. You say that it is clearly a notable occurrence, but that's your opinion. Do sources on the overarching topic of this article—Dyson spheres—view it as such, as evidenced by covering it non-trivially? If so, add those sources. The number of pageviews Relics (Star Trek: The Next Generation) gets compared to e.g. The Wanderer (Leiber novel) is irrelevant—what matters is whether sources on the overarching topic discuss these fictional examples. Likewise, it doesn't matter if an example is from an on-screen medium or literature—what matters is the coverage in sources on the topic. That Freeman Dyson commented on it is an interesting piece of trivia for the episode, but it does not confer weight to its prominence in the overall literature on the topic of Dyson spheres (or their depiction in fiction).

On the subject of what other editors think, you may have noticed that I was not actually the first editor to edit the page after you—that was MichaelMaggs, who also emphasized the issue of relevance to this article (but thought inclusion was in principle okay). TompaDompa (talk) 14:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The fact that two people were acting as gatekeepers, editing down a short paragraph and then deleting it within minutes of its appearance, after the same reference had been added multiple times by other editors in the past, doesn't make things better.

You seem to want sources to say how notable one depiction is relative to other depictions before it can be included or discussed; I don't think this view will find much support in the Wikipedia community. The fact that the article on the episode itself had eight thousand page views over the last ninety days does say something about the notability of the depiction: it means that a lot of people have seen and are familiar with it. A lot more than have read most of the novels mentioning a Dyson sphere.

And I carefully made sure that the only things I mentioned in the paragraph were about the Dyson sphere itself, which although central to the plot of the episode, is not the most notable thing about it; that would have been James Doohan reprising his role as Montgomery Scott in an episode of The Next Generation. I did not mention anything about the plot, other than that the Enterprise was trapped in a Dyson sphere, and that it was the first ever observed; the size of the Dyson sphere and the fact that it was deserted due to its unstable sun seem relevant, since both the size and practical problems of a Dyson sphere seem relevant to the depiction of Dyson spheres in fiction.

I believe that I was quite economical with words; all of this took a mere three sentences in one short paragraph, followed by the fact that Freeman Dyson watched and commented on it—something not mentioned with respect to any of the other works, some of which aren't even about Dyson spheres, but "similar" ideas. Although I suggest that the "Dyson ring" in Ringworld may be worth another sentence or two; Larry Niven is a fairly important author, and Ringworld one of his most famous works (I read it, and its sequel, a couple of years ago, in part because I was interested in the Dyson sphere concept).

But the point is, what I wrote is not excessive, and not undue weight to one depiction, given that the details relate primarily to the depiction of a Dyson sphere, and not the plot of the episode. The sources are more than adequate to support what is said; adding more (such as the episode script, which is avaiilable, or reviews of the episode in magazines) would be cumulative, but not necessary. Quite a lot of editors seem to agree that it is a notable depiction; their opinions are just as valid as yours. P Aculeius (talk) 14:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

You seem to want sources to say how notable one depiction is relative to other depictions before it can be included or discussed; I don't think this view will find much support in the Wikipedia community. No, that's not what I said. Read what I wrote again. However, that relevance is determined by sources on the topic, not by the opinions of Wikipedia editors, is codified in Wikipedia's WP:Core content policy of WP:PROPORTION. Mind you that This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. (emphasis in original).

Quite a lot of editors seem to agree that it is a notable depiction; their opinions are just as valid as yours. Here you entirely correct, if only by mistake: their opinions, and yours, are equally irrelevant as mine. I should not have to tell you that the viewpoints of editors are irrelevant; this is a very basic level of understanding of our WP:Neutrality policy (The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is irrelevant and should not be considered.). TompaDompa (talk) 14:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

All this said, if we do find (at least decent-quality) sources on the topic of Dyson spheres, or their depictions in fiction, that mention the Star Trek episode, then we can mention it here—but the current level of detail, with an entire paragraph devoted to it including a bunch of plot information, would still be obviously disproportionate. I'll go looking for adequate sources. If I find any, I will add them—and copyedit this down to a more reasonable length that doesn't over-emphasize what would still be a relatively WP:MINORASPECT. TompaDompa (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Tagbombing the paragraph, as you just did, is also tendentious editing. Primary sources are perfectly valid for their own contents, and a secondary source is already cited that backs up everything cited to the primary sources. The level of detail is obviously not excessive, or full of "a bunch of plot information". The size of the Dyson sphere and the fact that it's deserted because its sun is unstable are both perfectly relevant to how the Dyson sphere is portrayed, since these are both things that go toward the plausibility and practicality of engineering a Dyson sphere. This is a short paragraph—about the same length as the others in the section—and you're just finding one excuse after the other to get rid of it. If this continues, I may have to refer it to the Administrators' noticeboard. P Aculeius (talk) 15:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Primary sources are okay for WP:Verifying in-universe plot details; they never confer WP:Notability or WP:Weight. The level of detail, compared to the level of detail provided by sources on the overarching topic (again, 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.) was very obviously way out of proportion. It was a devoted paragraph all to itself, consisting of multiple sentences, way more than any other work of fiction got despite other works of fiction featuring more prominently in the secondary literature on the topic. I don't see how you can claim otherwise.

Lest we forget: you added this, were reverted through a series of edits by two editors, and then re-added it without discussion. I tagged the issues duly identified by me as well as MichaelMaggs only after you had unilaterally reintroduced the disputed material, as a second-best option for the moment. TompaDompa (talk) 15:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Your opinion is not better than that of three other editors who have told you otherwise. P Aculeius (talk) 15:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

No, but my grasp of policy is evidently better than yours. The opinions of editors do not matter here, as noted above. TompaDompa (talk) 16:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And now you've re-introduced your favoured version, I see. Perhaps you can explain how you think this level of detail is in line with treat[ing] each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject, as mandated by WP:PROPORTION? TompaDompa (talk) 15:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

It's a short paragraph describing in three sentences how a Dyson sphere is depicted in one notable work of fiction, and, at least at the time I wrote it, including the only description of Dyson's reaction to the depiction of one in a work of fiction. And before you lumped it together with multiple other paragraphs—and then reduced it to "a Dyson sphere appears in this episode", it was about the same length as the other paragraphs in the section. That's not disproportionate! P Aculeius (talk) 16:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

How is covering it at greater length, and greater visual prominence, than works that feature more prominently in the overall literature in the overarching topic compatible with WP:PROPORTION? TompaDompa (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

How much space is devoted to works of literature in literature about a subject is only one measure of significance. If you think an important depiction of a Dyson sphere in literature has been given short shrift, by all means expand upon it. I note that novels written many years before a depiction on television are naturally more likely to be discussed in the literature, much of which will also long predate the television episode. And the nature of novels allows them to provide much more in the way of technical details and descriptions.

But it's not reasonable to say that "this novel takes place on a Dyson sphere" establishes a limit for how long any description of a Dyson sphere's depiction in other literary works should be. If you can provide basic information about the Dyson spheres described in the two or three novels that mention them, by all means do so; a paragraph on each would not make this section unwieldy. The fact that these mentions do not currently describe the Dyson spheres that occur in those works does not mean that there should be no description of the Dyson spheres that occur in literature. P Aculeius (talk) 16:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

How much space is devoted to works of literature in literature about a subject is only one measure of significance. That's true, but the coverage in the literature on the topic is the measure Wikipedia uses in assigning due weight, as a matter of policy. You keep ignoring this very central point as though it were optional to abide by.

a paragraph on each would not make this section unwieldy A paragraph on each would be disproportionate both in terms of the coverage they get by the sources relative to each other and in terms of the coverage Dyson spheres get in the sources as a fictional concept compared to as a theoretical concept. TompaDompa (talk) 16:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Lumping several paragraphs together to minimize any one mention, then reducing the discussion of how a Dyson sphere is depicted in a notable work of fiction to "a Dyson sphere appears in this episode" is beyond any reasonable editing. Since you're unwilling to behave reasonably and showing clear ownership behaviour, the next step will be to involve third parties—other than the ones who've already weighed in in this discussion, and told you that it's quite notable. P Aculeius (talk) 15:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, I removed the circular sourcing and replaced it with secondary sources using Space.com and Popular Mechanics, although the latter only has the merest mention of the episode. I hope this helps. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 16:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the source, but the episode itself should still have been cited, IMO. It's a valid source for its contents, since anyone who views it can verify what it's about, and all of the details mentioned. I believe that our verifiability policy explicitly states that works of literature are valid sources for their own contents, e.g. The Adventures of Bob Ross has twenty-two chapters, the main characters are Bob Ross and Boberta Moss, Captain Ahab is obsessed with a white whale called "Moby Dick". Secondary sources are always appreciated, however. P Aculeius (talk) 16:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

There is a wikilink to the episode so that is taken care of. Using the wikilink in the article and as a source is circular and Wikipedia cannot be used to reference itself. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 16:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. You can't cite the contents of a television episode to the episode itself if it already has an article on Wikipedia? Then what is the "episode-link" parameter in the cite television episode template for? The source is the episode, not the Wikipedia article about the episode. I don't see why this would be any different from citing to a book that's notable enough to have its own article. P Aculeius (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:PSTS Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. We have two secondary sources there is no need for a primary one, let alone double linking to the Wikipedia article. You are the only one arguing for the need for a primary source here and I fail to understand why it is so necessary to you. You wanted inclusion of the episode and now it is included and with reliable sourcing. Why not drop the stick and take the win rather than push further with no consensus at all for your version? ThaddeusSholto (talk) 16:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I felt it was appropriate to cite the episode itself for its contents—something apparently not detailed in Popular Mechanics, and because it provided bibliographic information on the episode, which otherwise you have to go to another article to find (and not all television episodes have that). Since the material was previously deleted for being "unsourced" even though it clearly identified the source, I chose to err on the side of caution and cite everything very carefully. I questioned your deletion of the source, because it sounded like you thought that I was citing the Wikipedia article about the episode as a source, rather than the episode itself, and that's not what I was doing. P Aculeius (talk) 18:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The material was not removed for being "unsourced" even though it clearly identified the source, it was removed for lacking proper sourcing. That is to say, lacking sourcing on the overarching topic: Dyson spheres (or their depiction in fiction). The fact that you felt it necessary to cite the primary source itself for the plot details—rather than getting them from the relevant sources on the overarching topic—should tell you something. If sources on the overarching topic do not cover the plot details, those plot details are not an important WP:ASPECT of the overarching topic even if they are an important aspect of the episode itself.

This level of detail could dubiously be justified at a hypothetical Dyson spheres in fiction article that also goes into much more detail about the works of fiction deemed by the sources to be major examples, but it is way out of WP:PROPORTION to its significance to this topic—Dyson spheres. We currently devote 50 words to describing in-universe details of a Star Trek episode that, going by the sources on the overarching topic, is a rather minor example. The article currently says The USS Enterprise is trapped in a Dyson Sphere [...]. It is the first such structure to be discovered, and is measured at two hundred million kilometers in diameter. The sphere has been abandoned by its inhabitants, apparently because its central sun has become unstable, emitting dangerous solar flares and radiation. Why mention that the Enterprise is trapped on the inside? Why mention that it is the first to be discovered (in-universe)? Why go into details about how the central star has become unstable? How important is the exact size? A much, much briefer summary could for instance be [In the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode "Relics",] a Dyson sphere that has been abandoned after its central star became unstable appears. or for that matter [...] an abandoned Dyson sphere whose central star has become unstable appears. TompaDompa (talk) 19:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Can you possibly be more nitpicky than to complain about even the slightest detail besides "appears in foo"? What use is that to anyone? It's three sentences, one of which mentions the Dyson sphere, the second of which says it's the first such thing discovered and how big it is, and the third says it's abandoned and why—this level of complete hostility and ownership with one half-baked reason after another for deleting, minimizing, desourcing, tagbombing, and belittling a single short paragraph because you don't like the fact that it's there at all is beyond all reason. P Aculeius (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

P Aculeius, this edit that you made this afternoon is disruptive. When someone reverts your addition, with reasons given, you must *not* simply put it back while discussion is ongoing on the talk page. It is for *you* to establish that you have consensus for any additional text, and per WP:BRD you need to discuss, not repeatedly revert. You have stated no policy-based reason for including "The USS Enterprise is trapped. The sphere is the first such structure to be discovered, and is measured at two hundred million kilometers in diameter. It has been abandoned by its inhabitants, apparently because its central sun has become unstable, emitting dangerous solar flares and radiation. None of that adds anything to this article. It is no more than trivial Star Trek trivia that fails WP:PROPORTION (and "engineering marvel" is unsourced). You have got the Star Trek mention you wanted; leave it at that. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

You literally reduced a useful, well-sourced and brief paragraph to a passing mention within minutes; that was the disruptive thing. You didn't seem to think there was any need to discuss it before you did that; apparently only other people need to discuss things on the talk page, but you and TompaDompa don't, because you own the topic and get to decide what's relevant and how much can be said by anyone else. If it's "trivial trivia that adds nothing to this article", then of course you need to delete it—according to you it violates all kinds of policies, so it all needs to go. Just do it already. P Aculeius (talk) 22:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Come on, now. WP:Comment on content, not on the contributor. If you think there are WP:Ownership issues, the proper venue to raise that point is WP:ANI—though I would recommend reflecting upon WP:BOOMERANG first. TompaDompa (talk) 15:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Having reviewed the page history of both this and the former article, "Dyson spheres in popular culture", I'm fairly confident that, irrespective of how heated this discussion got, you'd have a hard time defending removing this well-sourced and relevant content again. In various forms it was part of "Dyson spheres in popular culture" from its creation in 2006 to 2021, when you deleted 90% of the article, reducing it to two paragraphs—which was why it got merged here after hardly expanding beyond that over the next two-and-a-half years. That, and your deleting nearly every contribution other editors made during that time, all on the grounds that they "lacked proper sourcing".

However, in most instances the source was obvious, and what you could have done was look for other sources or provide citations, instead of deleting them all within hours. The way you've chosen to apply the relevant policies prevented the topic from expanding beyond a stub, or even providing a useful overview of the treatment of Dyson spheres in the handful of examples that weren't deleted. After merging, you and MichaelMaggs continued deleting almost every contribution made by other editors—you on the grounds of inadequate sourcing, he on the grounds that they were all "trivial"—a claim repeated last night, in which he called "Relics", and I quote, "trivial Star Trek trivia".

The fact that fifteen different editors have thought it notable and relevant, and tried to restore this particular example to "Dyson spheres in popular culture", as well as the merged and retitled section since 2021, should have suggested that it's a notable example, and perhaps shouldn't have been deleted over and over again. As should the fact that two other editors immediately registered their agreement with that position before this conversation got out of control yesterday.

Instead, the reaction was first, delete it piece-by-piece; remove the sources; tag it in multiple and redundant ways; delete it again; replace the sources that actually say something about the episode with sources that merely mention it; cut out sentences you don't like, arguing that they're irrelevant or barred by policy; rewrite what remains so that it says what you want it to say; and continue to argue ad nauseam that it doesn't belong in this article in the first place.

So yes, I stand by my position that you and MichaelMaggs have made yourselves owners and gatekeepers of this article, and have gone far beyond any reasonable limits in keeping out any content that you personally disagree with including, no matter what reasons other editors have provided for including it. And I think that will be apparent to anyone who reviews the history of this article and the former "Dyson spheres in popular culture". P Aculeius (talk) 16:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

If you start by assuming that when I say that I want the article to abide by WP:PROPORTION by treating each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject I mean exactly that, I assure you it will all make a lot more sense to you. For starters: I cleaned up Dyson spheres in popular culture from a version that was a TV Tropes-style list that did not have any sources on the overarching topic whatsoever and turned it into a brief prose article based on sources about the overarching topic. Maybe this is a novel approach to you, but it is a tried-and-tested one for articles like this—indeed, there are even articles that were improved from precisely that kind of list without proper sourcing to WP:Featured article status, namely Mars in fiction (which I rewrote from scratch) and Venus in fiction (which Piotrus cleaned up, followed by the two of us collaborating on bringing it up to FA quality). The reason those articles (as well as Sun in fiction, which was not converted from a bad article to a quality one but which I wrote properly from the start) can be of FA quality is precisely that they do indeed abide by WP:PROPORTION by relying on sources on their respective overarching topics for establishing the appropriate relative weight of different aspects and examples. That the Dyson spheres in popular culture article was never improved to that level of quality by way of expansion is largely a result of high-quality sources on that topic being comparatively scarce. You can scoff at removing material for lacking proper sourcing, but you must realize that certain sourcing requirements (which differ from context to context) are an integral part of how Wikipedia works. Your assertion that in most instances the source was obvious, and what you could have done was look for other sources or provide citations leads me to believe that you (still!) do not understand what kind of sourcing is actually required here.

You seem to be under the impression that editors, not sources, decide what's relevant to a topic (seeing as you have said Quite a lot of editors seem to agree that it is a notable depiction; their opinions are just as valid as yours. and The fact that fifteen different editors have thought it notable and relevant [...] should have suggested that it's a notable example, as well as other things along similar lines). That's just not how Wikipedia works. I know I sound like a broken record, but please read and understand WP:PROPORTION (and the rest of WP:NPOV, for that matter): articles should treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. That's sources, not editors—surely you must understand that?

You also seem to be under the impression that my objection to the Star Trek example has been that I disapprove of it per se. I put it to you that this is nonsensical in light of the fact that I repeatedly brought up the issue of whether there are sources that would make its inclusion WP:PROPORTION-compliant (Do any sources on the topic of this article—Dyson spheres—discuss the Star Trek episode? and Do sources on the overarching topic of this article—Dyson spheres—view it as such, as evidenced by covering it non-trivially? If so, add those sources. and All this said, if we do find (at least decent-quality) sources on the topic of Dyson spheres, or their depictions in fiction, that mention the Star Trek episode, then we can mention it here [...] I'll go looking for adequate sources. If I find any, I will add them) and then located such sources and added them to the article. I have no reason to want to remove the Star Trek example now as it is, even if not well-sourced, at least adequately-sourced. Again, if you just assume that I mean precisely what I say when I make reference to abiding by WP:PROPORTION, you will certainly find that it makes much more sense.

You must not have read what MichaelMaggs wrote particularly carefully, or else you are deliberately misrepresenting what they said, because they didn't say that the episode was trivial or trivia, they said that the plot description (specifically The USS Enterprise is trapped. The sphere is the first such structure to be discovered, and is measured at two hundred million kilometers in diameter. It has been abandoned by its inhabitants, apparently because its central sun has become unstable, emitting dangerous solar flares and radiation—note that the episode title was not mentioned) was.

I don't mean to be rude, but have you considered the possibility that maybe you are simply in the wrong here? You say that the discussion got "heated" and "out of control"—I put it to you that I, and other editors, explained why we disagree repeatedly (often with clearly-outlined policy-based reasons to back those positions up), while you got irate and accused others of wrongdoing and malicious intent. TompaDompa (talk) 18:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I put it to you that you're the ones making a mountain out of a molehill—you could have left what I wrote alone as a reasonable addition, but you deleted it, then worked to change, cut, replace, rewrite, and otherwise argue that it didn't belong in the article, so you could get rid of something you just don't like, the same as you did fifteen other times in the last two and a half years. I'll also note that the first sentence in the above quotation isn't what I wrote. It's what MichaelMaggs rewrote because he didn't like what I had written.

But those three sentences are the whole of what was left of what I wrote, other than what Freeman Dyson said about the episode—which you two also took issue with, simply because I described a Dyson sphere as an "engineering marvel". I guess that's too controversial a description, not neutral enough, because some people might not think that a Dyson sphere would be an engineering marvel! But if you're arguing that everything I wrote about it is "trivial Star Trek trivia", then no, I didn't misrepresent anything. That's not a "plot description". A "plot description" would be,

The Enterprise discovers a huge object that might be a Dyson sphere, with a crashed ship on it. Inside the ship, they find two patterns in the transporter buffer, and manage to rematerialize former Enterprise Chief Engineer Montgomery Scott, who has been preserved for seventy-five years in the transporter. The Enterprise then enters the Dyson sphere, and the crew studies the structure with interest, before realizing that the ship is trapped, and threatened by dangerous radiation from the sphere's central star.

While the crew works to free the Enterprise from the Dyson sphere, Scotty tries to come to terms with being seventy-five years in the future, with his crewmate and everyone he knew now dead, and hopelessly out of place in the twenty-fourth century. He interacts with various members of the crew, in some case with callbacks to his more memorable scenes from the original Star Trek.

After a long talk with Captain Picard aboard a replica of the original Enterprise bridge on the holodeck, Scotty has much to think about. With moments to spare, the Enterprise finds a way to open the gate of the Dyson sphere, and escapes to safety. Scotty bids a sentimental farewell to his new friends, as he goes to make a new life for himself.

That's a fairly economical "plot description", and it hardly provides any details about the Dyson sphere, since the details of how it's portrayed are incidental to the plot. Mentioning that "The Enterprise is trapped in a Dyson sphere" is not fluff; it's the briefest possible explanation of why a Dyson sphere appears in the episode. The description of the Dyson sphere's size, the fact that it's deserted, and the fact that its central sun is unstable and emitting dangerous flares and radiation is incidental to the plot, but key to how the sphere is portrayed in the episode—as well as suggesting some of the possible engineering details and challenges of a Dyson sphere.

That's precisely what kind of description that should be in this article: not what happens in the episode, but how the Dyson sphere is portrayed. The fact that you two object even to this, and to the sentence "The Enterprise finds itself trapped in a Dyson sphere" because it contains even a whiff of plot, and would rather delete the whole thing, or grudgingly permit "a Dyson sphere appears in this episode" without any discussion of how the sphere is portrayed, just shows how unreasonable your gatekeeping standards are. P Aculeius (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Again with the aspersions of bad faith and baseless assumption that people disagree with you due to some personal dislike of the example in question.

That's precisely what kind of description that should be in this article: not what happens in the episode, but how the Dyson sphere is portrayed. This may shock you, but I actually agree with this part—provided that it is in WP:PROPORTION to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. TompaDompa (talk) 22:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I submit that the description of "Relics" as I wrote it is not out of proportion to its treatment in non-fiction literature about the subject of Dyson spheres.

That body of literature is not very substantial in the first place, precisely because Dyson spheres are a hypothetical—in fact highly speculative—idea that few scientists, including the late Freeman Dyson believe could actually exist, and which could not be practically constructed using any known methods; they exist only in hypotheses, thought experiments, and fiction. Many non-fiction sources mention Dyson spheres, but very few of them will be longer than a magazine article, because none are known to exist, no realistic plans for building one have ever been drawn up, and it's likely that the most detailed descriptions that exist are the ones that occur in works of fiction.

Any fictional treatment of Dyson spheres mentioned in non-fiction literature about the subject is likely notable, and "Relics" is one of the few examples of Dyson spheres in fiction that is is mentioned in such literature. That's all that's necessary to justify a description of the Dyson sphere from "Relics". It's not necessary for every part of that description to be in the non-fiction literature; just that the literature mentions it. As long as the description itself is verifiable, of a reasonable length, and is narrowly tailored to discuss the Dyson sphere as it is depicted, without adding unnecessary and irrelevant details about the episode's plot, it should be fine. I don't believe that the paragraph I wrote went into unnecessary or irrelevant detail; it was short and to the point, and did not need to be shortened significantly, much less by half.

The same would be true of any of the novels named: if they're significant enough to be mentioned at all, then it's fair to provide a description of the Dyson spheres (or in the case of Ringworld, the Dyson ring) that are depicted. For example, a brief description of Ringworld, how it's constructed, and perhaps who built or inhabited it, without getting into the details of the novels' plot, would be reasonable, even if none of the scholarly articles about Dyson spheres do more than mention Ringworld as a variation on the theme. One paragraph apiece on the most prominent examples does not seem excessive, but if the section did become quite large, it might be appropriate to split the list back into a separate article again.

But to return to "Relics", it's likely that more people have watched that episode of Star Trek than have read all of the novels mentioned combined, and that more people first encountered—or at least became familiar with—the Dyson sphere concept due to watching "Relics" than through all of the scholarly literature on the topic.

And as the only example of the concept in fiction which we know that Freeman Dyson himself commented upon, the episode is particularly worthy of mention—not a passing mention, saying nothing more than "a Dyson sphere occurs in an episode of this show" but at least a short paragraph, such as the one I wrote. To which I would perhaps add the estimate of its (internal) surface area, said to be approximately 250 million [planets]. This could probably be combined with the sentence giving the estimate of its diameter. I didn't recall the estimate of its surface area when I wrote the paragraph, but it seems relevant to how Dyson spheres are portrayed in works of fiction, and mentioning it does not seem excessive. P Aculeius (talk) 06:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I submit that the description of "Relics" as I wrote it is not out of proportion to its treatment in non-fiction literature about the subject of Dyson spheres. – Right, now we're talking. All that's left now is to demonstrate that this is indeed the case.

That body of literature is not very substantial in the first place, precisely because [...] – It is comparatively sparse, yes, but it's not like there isn't extensive literature on completely unrealistic science fiction concepts. Time travel is a good example.

Any fictional treatment of Dyson spheres mentioned in non-fiction literature about the subject is likely notable – Just to make sure that we're talking about the same thing, WP:Notability in the Wikipedia sense is not what's relevant here. Whether something is an important/significant/relevant/major WP:ASPECT is.

"Relics" is one of the few examples of Dyson spheres in fiction that is is mentioned in such literature – I have to ask: have you surveyed the literature on the topic? Because I have (assuming the topic we're talking about is specifically the depiction of Dyson sphere in fiction and not Dyson spheres in general), and while I can't claim that it was exhaustive, it should at least be a representative sample of the relatively high-quality sources that exist (e.g. the "Dyson Sphere" entry in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction). I don't know where you would draw the line for "few" examples, but we're talking at least a dozen and a half (more if counting sequels separately) even if we are fairly restrictive in what sources we consider—and "Relics" is not one of the works most frequently mentioned, or one of the works discussed the most in-depth, or one of the works typically covered by the most high-quality sources.

The same would be true of any of the novels named: if they're significant enough to be mentioned at all, then it's fair to provide a description of the Dyson spheres [...] One paragraph apiece on the most prominent examples does not seem excessive, but if the section did become quite large, it might be appropriate to split the list back into a separate article again. – See above about the number of works we would be talking about. It would be completely out of WP:PROPORTION here at this article. Dyson spheres are primarily a hypothetical, not fictional concept. Now I was opposed to merging Dyson spheres in popular culture here (though it should really have been called Dyson spheres in fiction), but if we're going to split the fiction section off it should be because there is consensus that it would be a better way to cover the topic, not just becomes it becomes unmanageably bloated. Adding a bunch of raw data—whether you want to call it "plot description", "in-universe details", or something else—from the works of fiction themselves does not an article make (see the essay WP:CARGO for details). What you are describing is in fact basing an article chiefly on WP:Primary sources, which is not how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is not, nor is it supposed to be, a secondary source where editorial interpretation, analysis, and synthesis is allowed (or even encouraged).
You would have us turning the article into a TV Tropes-style article—now I like TV Tropes, but they do things completely differently than we do here at Wikipedia. Trying to apply a TV Tropes approach to Wikipedia content is a "square peg, round hole" type of situation. I would personally be in favour of linking to TV Tropes in the "External links" section in much the same way we do with IMDb links (and I would also be in favour of linking to Wikia/Fandom in this way), but I suppose a broader consensus would be needed to implement that.

One paragraph apiece on the most prominent examples – Out of curiosity: how would you determine which the most prominent examples are?

I'm sure that you would agree that if a hypothetical book-length source on the topic devoted an entire chapter to work A and only a sentence to work B, that would indicate that work A is a more important instance of this topos than work B, and our article should reflect this difference in relative weight placed upon the two works by the relevant literature, right? Likewise if twenty sources discuss work C and only one work D—right?

But to return to "Relics", it's likely that more people have watched that episode of Star Trek than have read all of the novels mentioned combined, and that more people first encountered—or at least became familiar with—the Dyson sphere concept due to watching "Relics" than through all of the scholarly literature on the topic. – Maybe, but that's irrelevant here. Coverage in the secondary literature is what matters.

And as the only example of the concept in fiction which we know that Freeman Dyson himself commented upon – It isn't. He very specifically commented upon Olaf Stapledon's Star Maker, indeed even noting that's where he got the idea from.
And as the only example of the concept in fiction which we know that Freeman Dyson himself commented upon, the episode is particularly worthy of mention – Dyson commenting on the episode is interesting, and if we are going to cover the episode I think it's worth briefly mentioning, but it does not in itself mean that the episode should be covered here—that comes down to the coverage in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. Dyson commenting on the episode is information about the episode (and should therefore be covered on the article about the episode: Relics (Star Trek: The Next Generation)), not about the topic of this article—Dyson spheres. TompaDompa (talk) 11:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

If something is itself notable by mention in "serious" literature, you do not need the literature to list all of its details; you can use primary sources to describe it, because those are the best sources for their own contents. What's prohibited is analyzing or commenting on the primary sources, not using them as sources for a plain, factual description of their own contents. And the amount of coverage found in "serious" literature is not the sole factor to consider: familiarity to the general public is perfectly relevant.

One brief paragraph is not out of proportion to the article as it currently stands; certainly not as the section "Dyson spheres in fiction" stands, and the rest of the article itself certainly would have the potential for expansion if anyone chose to incorporate more of the available material on the subject; the fact that that isn't being done shouldn't mean that none of the sections can be expanded beyond their current size.

As it is, the two remaining paragraphs are clunky and cluttered because all of the works have been lumped together; the sentence about "big dumb objects" does not seem to belong in the first paragraph, and the concept ought to be explained in more detail rather than merely pointing to other articles. The next three examples from novels or novel series should be a separate paragraph, potentially expanded if any of the examples listed were described in more detail; but as they are, they form a discrete unit.

Following this, a paragraph on "Relics", because the material is available and was already written, focusing on the Dyson sphere, not the episode's plot. Then "variations on the theme", if they're not being further expanded at this time. None of this would substantially increase the size of the section, but they would make it more readable, and nothing should prevent any of the examples from being expanded to two or three sentences describing the Dyson spheres or related objects as they're portrayed.

It makes no sense to prevent the growth of this section merely because it might become unwieldy, since that is how Wikipedia articles are supposed to work; if the contents of one section become disproportionate to their overall importance, they can be split off into articles of their own, just as "Dyson spheres in popular culture" was for seventeen years. But that hasn't happened yet, and the need to do so in the future is as hypothetical as Dyson spheres themselves.

Merely naming notable examples of Dyson spheres in fiction is of little value to the reader, as it requires the reader to survey numerous articles written with differing levels of attention to detail, often focused on aspects of those works other than the portrayal of Dyson spheres. The usefulness of "Dyson spheres in fiction" isn't merely that it points readers to other articles in which they might be able to find some descriptions of fictional Dyson spheres if someone has bothered to supply them, and if they're not buried under mountains of plot details or the background of novels or scripts. It's that the relevant details can be sifted out and collected in one place, focused precisely on how Dyson spheres are portrayed. Those details aren't "trivia"; they're what justifies the existence of the section. P Aculeius (talk) 14:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

As I said above: primary sources are okay for WP:Verifying in-universe information, but they never confer WP:Notability or WP:Weight.

the amount of coverage found in "serious" literature is not the sole factor to consider: familiarity to the general public is perfectly relevant – That's just straight-up wrong when it comes to weight. Please read and understand WP:PROPORTION (and the rest of WP:NPOV, for that matter): articles should treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. It doesn't say "proportional to its familiarity to the general public", now does it? In fact, WP:NPOV explicitly states more generally that The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is irrelevant and should not be considered.

Merely naming notable examples of Dyson spheres in fiction is of little value to the reader – I don't entirely disagree, but what is of value to the reader is not pure description of in-universe details either, but rather overarching analysis—which of course needs to come from the sources, not editors. The essay WP:CARGO describes this very well, methinks. TompaDompa (talk) 16:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I think you're misapplying the policies, and relying on an essay that has no application here. "Treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject" does not mean, "the maximum length of discussion in Wikipedia is determined exclusively by the length of discussion in reliable, published material on the subject."

And discussing notable examples of fictional Dyson spheres under the heading of "Dyson spheres in fiction" in no way constitutes "cargo cult encyclopedia article editing". The author of that essay did not intend to exclude discussion of noteworthy examples: this is not the equivalent of "a Mormon character blowing her nose in this episode of this television series," and discussing a notable example is not a mere accumulation of "raw data".

The opinion of editors other than yourself as to what amount of discussion is reasonable and proportionate to the treatment of a fictional example in reliable, published material is not only relevant, but determinative. Four separate editors who have dared to wade into this minefield have said that "Relics" is a particularly noteworthy example of a Dyson sphere in fiction, and worthy of a brief discussion. In their opinion, one paragraph describing the Dyson sphere from "Relics" is not disproportionate and does not violate NPOV. Just because you interpret the same policies to reach a different conclusion does not make everyone else wrong. P Aculeius (talk) 17:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I hope you aren't including me in the "Four separate editors who have dared to wade into this minefield" because at no point did I say "Relics" was particularly noteworthy. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 17:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

"Treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject" does not mean, "the maximum length of discussion in Wikipedia is determined exclusively by the length of discussion in reliable, published material on the subject." – No, but it does mean that when sources give a lot of weight to X so should we, and when they give only a little weight to Y so should we. As WP:NPOV points out, it's not just about length: Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery.

I wouldn't presume to tell you what Uncle G meant when they wrote the essay WP:CARGO back in 2008, but we can always just ask as they are still active on Wikipedia. The point I was making above is that in writing articles like this, analysis is paramount and examples are secondary/complementary to that analysis, and I think the "Collecting raw data does not produce an analysis" paragraph is a good way of explaining that concept.

In their opinion, one paragraph describing the Dyson sphere from "Relics" is not disproportionate and does not violate NPOV. – Great, then back that up with sources and we should all reach agreement. I have, as I stated above, made an actual attempt to survey the relevant literature—and I came to the conclusion that based on the sources, "Relics" is a relatively WP:MINORASPECT. Have you likewise surveyed the literature on the topic (i.e. not just gone looking for sources that cover "Relics"), or is it your opinion that it is a particularly noteworthy example of a Dyson sphere in fiction? TompaDompa (talk) 18:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

It's your opinion that it shouldn't be discussed in any detail as a "minor aspect". And I don't need secondary sources to say "this treatment is more important than that one" or "the following are the most important treatments of this subject in fiction"—there will rarely ever be that kind of discussion in the literature—all the more so because Dyson spheres are themselves hypothetical and improbable.

Whether something is worthy of inclusion in an article is for editors to decide—not one or two editors acting as gatekeepers and ignoring all contrary opinions. Your contention may be that other editors aren't entitled to decide what's particularly noteworthy, but no matter how many policies you cite or how often you cite them, the notion that they support your position is just your judgment, and other editors are just as entitled to make up their own minds as to how basic Wikipedia policies apply to this specific example. P Aculeius (talk) 18:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

It's your opinion that it shouldn't be discussed in any detail as a "minor aspect". – No, it isn't. As in, that's not the position I have taken. Have you read what I have written?

And I don't need secondary sources to say "this treatment is more important than that one" or "the following are the most important treatments of this subject in fiction"—there will rarely ever be that kind of discussion in the literature—all the more so because Dyson spheres are themselves hypothetical and improbable. – No, but surely you understand that the coverage in sources can indicate variations in relative weight in other ways than explicit statements about relative weight? As I said above: surely you would agree that if a hypothetical book-length source on the topic devoted an entire chapter to work A and only a sentence to work B, that would indicate that work A is a more important instance of this topos than work B, and our article should reflect this difference in relative weight placed upon the two works by the relevant literature, right? Likewise if twenty sources discuss work C and only one work D—right?

Your second paragraph boils down to Wikipedia's WP:Core content policies, specifically WP:NPOV and WP:PROPORTION in particular, being optional and subject to being overridden by local consensus. That's just not how Wikipedia works. That the sources are what determine the relative weight of different aspects, not editors, isn't just my opinion—it's a fundamental aspect of how Wikipedia works and such a basic level of understanding thereof that I honestly kind of assumed that you did not need it to be explained. I am certain that you would not advance this argument about a WP:BLP article, that we should include the things we as editors think are important in the proportion we find them to be important instead of reflecting the importance placed upon them by the sources on the topic. The same principles apply to all articles. TompaDompa (talk) 18:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

You're the one who doesn't seem to understand that it's only your interpretation that the policies apply to this example the way you say they do, and that your opinion is not one iota better than anyone else's. No matter how often you talk down to me and tell me I just don't understand how Wikipedia works, it doesn't make your opinions facts, and it doesn't mean you get to disregard what other editors say about how the policies apply to this example. P Aculeius (talk) 19:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I'll humour you: what do you think 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. means? TompaDompa (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Still talking down to me, I see. I don't know of any reason why you would read that as a precise description of the length of a contribution, rather than a vague guide that reasonable editors could differ on. This section is about "Dyson spheres in fiction", not a "list of fictional works that include Dyson spheres". Obviously a fictional work in which a Dyson sphere occurs has to be named to be of any value; but if it can't describe the Dyson sphere as it's depicted in the work, then it's not really about "Dyson spheres in fiction"—it's a "list of fictional works that include Dyson spheres". At a bare minimum, any work included in this section ought to have at least a general description; having enough of a description to be useful to readers interested in the depiction of Dyson spheres in fiction can't be disproportionate to the importance of any work of fiction that's important enough to be mentioned in this section. Describing the diameter, surface area, mass, or brief notes on the structure or structural defects of the Dyson sphere in two or three sentences isn't excessive by any criteria. P Aculeius (talk) 12:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

why you would read that as a precise description of the length of a contribution – I have to admit that I'm not sure exactly what you meant by this, but your reference to "a precise description of the length" suggests to me that you think I hold some (unclear) position that I do not.

a vague guide that reasonable editors could differ on – Let's say for the sake of argument that it is. What does treat[ing] each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject mean to you, then?

Describing the diameter, surface area, mass, or brief notes on the structure or structural defects of the Dyson sphere in two or three sentences isn't excessive by any criteria. – Are those the WP:ASPECTS that sources in the topic focus on? If not, it would be out of WP:PROPORTION to the coverage of those aspects in in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. TompaDompa (talk) 17:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@ThaddeusSholto: No, I wasn't including you; I don't intentionally ascribe opinions to people who haven't voiced them. I meant myself, the two other editors who agreed when this argument first started, and the one who replied below, though the last wasn't as strongly in support as I'd have liked. But then, I don't know who pinged him to prop up what position. P Aculeius (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

For the record, I linked to Piotrus' user page here to give due credit for playing an important role in bringing Venus in fiction to WP:Featured article status. TompaDompa (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Wait a minute, that's who you were referring to when you said that In their opinion, one paragraph describing the Dyson sphere from "Relics" is not disproportionate and does not violate NPOV.? The editor who said what we in the current reversion seems fine (two sentences, one about the episode, one about Dyson's own commentary) back when the current version looked like this and categorically did not have one paragraph describing the Dyson sphere from "Relics"? TompaDompa (talk) 18:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) But I don't mind it being there at all; I care about abiding by WP:PROPORTION. This is something you seem not to understand. I raised the question of sources on the overarching topic covering this in my very first post here. If sources on the overarching topic make a big deal of this example, it should be covered here. If they cover it only a little, it should at most be covered briefly here. That the Star Trek Dyson sphere in question is the first Star Trek Dyson sphere is completely extraneous to the overall topic here, which you must surely realize?

Also, let's be frank here: if anybody is exhibiting WP:OWNership behaviour here, it is you. You have repeatedly[3][4][5] reinstated your preferred version of the article (initially without any discussion whatsoever[6]), jumped straight to assuming bad faith when people disagree with you,[7][8][9] and even when presented with clearly-stated policy-based reasons as to why your edits have problems, you have repeatedly[10][11][12][13][14] made reference to your personal assessment that this is an important aspect of the topic (rather than making any reference to the sources making that assessment) while expressing no interest whatsoever in any kind of compromise. What you call "tagbombing" was in fact adding maintenance tags to issues[15][16] that had already been identified and fixed[17][18][19][20] before you reverted to your preferred version of the article.[21] I suggested a way forward: finding sources on the overarching topic that could be used to make this WP:PROPORTION-compliant.[22] I found those sources and added them to the article, while also copyediting for brevity to make it WP:PROPORTION-compliant.[23] You reverted that change wholesale, not even retaining the sources.[24] TompaDompa (talk) 22:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I was pinged at some point; I've skimmed the discussion and history of the main article. Keeping it short, I'd support having a short mention of the ST:TNG episode; what we in the current reversion seems fine (two sentences, one about the episode, one about Dyson's own commentary). It is dissapointing that SFE does not mention Star Trek [25], but it is also a reminder that we have to consider issues such as DUE. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

What I initially wrote was,

The USS Enterprise is trapped in a Dyson Sphere in the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode "Relics", and its novelization. It is the first such structure to be discovered, and is measured at two hundred million kilometers in diameter. The sphere has been abandoned by its inhabitants, apparently because its central sun has become unstable, emitting dangerous solar flares and radiation. In an interview, Freeman Dyson said that he enjoyed the episode, although he considered the concept of such an engineering marvel to be "nonsense". [internal citations omitted]

I don't think that's excessive, considering that besides Dyson's reaction, it's all about how the Dyson sphere is portrayed, and not the plot of the episode (for comparison only, I summarized that above). That it's unique even in Star Trek (at least at the point the episode takes place), how big it is, that it's abandoned, and that the reason is because its star is unstable and dangerous all seem to go toward what a Dyson sphere might be like, and the engineering challenges one presents, which is why I included those details. If I were writing it now, I'd also add the estimate of its (internal) surface area alongside its diameter; that would add a few words.

Omitting Dyson's reaction, what remains after editing by MichaelMaggs and TompaDompa is,

In the 1992 episode "Relics" of the TV show Star Trek: The Next Generation, the USS Enterprise finds itself trapped in an abandoned Dyson Sphere.

Which is ironic, given the criticism about including "plot details". The Enterprise being trapped in the sphere is the only part of what I wrote that contains even a whiff of plot, and that's been kept, though awkwardly reworded; but the description of the Dyson sphere itself has been deleted, and that's what's most relevant to this article! P Aculeius (talk) 13:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

The question is whether this is DUE. Perhaps it would be fine in a dedicated articles on Dyson sphere in fiction, if more materials could be found to expand it. But we should base such article on content in reliable overview sources like SFE. And that one, I checked, sadly does not mention Star Trek at all :( _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Nor do, for the record, the "Dyson, Freeman (John) (1923–)" entry of Brian Stableford's Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia (2006), the "Artifical Worlds" or "Stars" entries of Gary Westfahl's Science Fiction Literature through History: An Encyclopedia (2021), the "Space Habitats" entry of David Pringle's The Ultimate Encyclopedia of Science Fiction: The Definitive Illustrated Guide (1997), the "Dyson Sphere" entry of George Mann's The Mammoth Encyclopedia of Science Fiction (2001), or the "Far-future energy" chapter of Peter Nicholls's The Science in Science Fiction (1983). That last one of course predates the Star Trek episode, but the rest don't. TompaDompa (talk) 01:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

In fact, we had an article called "Dyson spheres in popular culture" from 2006 to 2023, when it was merged here, establishing a section called "Dyson spheres in fiction". Prior to that, there was a section here called "Fiction", which directed readers to the main article "Dyson spheres in popular culture", and otherwise said,

"The Dyson sphere originated in fiction, and it is a concept that has appeared often in science fiction since then. In fictional accounts, Dyson spheres are most often depicted as a Dyson shell with the gravitational and engineering difficulties of this variant noted above largely ignored."

In the final version of its original form, "Dyson spheres in popular culture" featured a timeline of Dyson spheres occurring in fiction, followed by individual sections on novels, television and film, games, and other media. For all of that time, "Relics" was the most prominent example in the visual media, though it was always limited to about one paragraph of material.

However, in 2021 TompaDompa deleted 90% of the article's contents, claiming they were unsourced, and saying that he would rewrite the article from scratch. What was left was about two paragraphs covering the entire subject from start to finish, and that barely expanded for the next two and a half years. Every contribution from other editors during that period was immediately reverted by TompaDompa as "unsourced", the majority of them attempting to re-add "Relics", citing to the episode itself as a source, but not providing a secondary source. Since the remains of the article were only a stub, they were merged here by MichaelMaggs in 2023.

So what we have here is numerous editors over the last three years asserting that "Relics" is a particularly notable example of a Dyson sphere in fiction, but one editor keeping it out because it's "unsourced" and another because it's "trivia". And when, astonished not to find it mentioned in its original location—because that's now just a redirect—or here, I tried to provide sources, TompaDompa decided that it's not "proportionate" to its importance in literature about Dyson spheres. Which is somewhat ironic, considering that there's not much serious literature about Dyson spheres, since nobody thinks they exist or could ever be built, and that therefore they are only known to exist in fiction, where, as the former section here stated, the concept originated. P Aculeius (talk) 11:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I submit that the wrong criteria have been used to prevent the expansion of this section. The section is about "Dyson spheres in fiction", so any notable work of fiction that substantially involves a Dyson sphere (i.e. not just passing mentions) should be included. TompaDompa is reading it as, "only works of fiction discussed in literature about actual Dyson spheres", or alternately, "only works about Dyson spheres that notable secondary sources about Science Fiction in general say are notable depictions of Dyson spheres", a criterion that evidently excludes many notable works of fiction that involve Dyson spheres—such as "Relics", although it's at least mentioned in literature about Dyson spheres. And being notable, it's not too much to ask that the Dyson sphere depicted actually be described, not merely mentioned in passing. P Aculeius (talk) 12:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

numerous editors over the last three years asserting that "Relics" is a particularly notable example of a Dyson sphere in fiction – And backing that assertion up with what sources? The opinions of editors do not matter in establishing due weight, which I'm sure I don't have to tell you.

I'll be blunt: you are clearly working backwards from the assumption that "Relics" is an important aspect of this topic. You have not based that on coverage in the sources, but rather on things that make it seem important to you, personally.

TompaDompa decided that it's not "proportionate" to its importance in literature about Dyson spheres. Which is somewhat ironic, considering that there's not much serious literature [...] – I have pointed you to several sources that cover the topic of Dyson spheres in fiction. If you think my assessment of those sources is wrong, make an argument to that effect rather than dismissing it out of hand based on your personal intuition about what should be covered. If you think I have missed important literature that would change my assessment, point to that literature and I'll reassess.

any notable work of fiction that substantially involves a Dyson sphere (i.e. not just passing mentions) should be included – That would mean basing the article or section chiefly on WP:Primary sources, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. What you are describing is how TV Tropes lists are created, not Wikipedia articles. TompaDompa (talk) 17:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)