Talk:Dyson sphere

Dyson sphere around white dwarfs

"This type would avoid the need for artificial gravity technology, in contrast to the AU-scale Dyson Spheres. In fact, we show that parameters can be found to build Dyson Spheres suitable —temperature- and gravity-wise— for human habitation. This type would be much harder to detect." from: http://phys.org/news/2015-03-idea-dyson-sphere.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.101.62.159 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

@Luizpuodzius:

Querendo traduzir é só dar um toque. Att

Good article reassessment

Dyson sphere

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

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Problems with OR, and plagiarism, and general sourcing issues. Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:01, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

This article was promoted back in 2007 upon its second nomination. Even then, the promotion was controversial because of perceived issues with the sourcing. Looking at this today, there are major sourcing issues, some of which I have highlighted by adding maintenance templates to the article. Large portions of the article are unsourced. Several references are to sources that do not appear to be reliable. Spotchecking sources reveals both material failing verification and plagiarism. The article consists to a large extent of WP:Original research by way of editorial WP:Synthesis, where sources are used to verify the underlying factual basis for the assertions made in the article (rather than verifying the assertions themselves) in a manner one would expect to find in an essay, rather than being cited in context and on topic as WP:NOR mandates. TompaDompa (talk) 23:23, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

In its present form this article falls far short of GA requirements. Much of the original research and synthesis, especially in the Variants section, is unlikely to be sourceable to anything reliable, and I'd suggest stripping all that out as a first step. Much of the rest (scientific rather than fictional/speculative) looks better, and there might just possibly be enough of that to save the article. Before things are removed wholesale - does anyone think the tagged material is at all sourceable? MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:05, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Some parts almost certainly are sourceable. I expect that the article would fail the broadness criterion if all the dubious material were removed (in fact, it might already do so). I agree that removing it would be a good first step, but I don't think it would be sufficient to meet the criteria. TompaDompa (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

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

Dyson spheres in fiction

The above argument has become circular, repetitive, and is too long to read, as well as containing various sub-arguments about ownership and assuming bad faith that aren't actually necessary to resolve the issue. So I'm calling it a wash, and starting a new section to restate the problem as I see it, and inviting members of interested WikiProjects to weigh in. Although I'm sure that the people who were already involved in the discussion above will want to reply, I think it's also worth seeing what people who can't possibly be asked to read that mess from start to finish have to say on the subject.

What I found: I came here a few days ago expecting to find some mention of the Dyson sphere from the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode "Relics" under "Dyson spheres in fiction", or "Dyson spheres in popular culture", and was astonished not to see it mentioned at all. In the course of the above discussion, I did some research, and learned that we did have an article called "Dyson spheres in popular culture" from 2006 to 2023, in which "Relics" was given as a prominent example. Here it is at the time of its creation in 2006, as expanded in 2010, and in its final form in 2021.

From November 18 to 22, 2021, TompaDompa deleted nearly all of the listed works, lists, and timelines, reducing the article's size by approximately 90%, and leaving a bare two paragraphs, mentioning a handful of novels, and no occurrences of Dyson spheres in film, television, or other media. The explanation provided was, "Rewriting from scratch based on sources that are actually about the topic, rather than examples thereof, per MOS:POPCULT." Two years later, the article still consisted of two substantially identical paragraphs, in part because TompaDompa reverted nearly every contribution made by other editors during that time, usually within hours of the addition, and always on the grounds that the additions were "unsourced", "lacks proper sourcing", or "lacks the kind of sourcing required by MOS:POPCULT", although in each instance the work itself was clearly identified, and in many cases was itself a notable work of fiction. Six of these reversions were attempts by various editors to add, mention, or discuss "Relics".

On May 22, 2022, MichaelMaggs proposed merging what was left of "Dyson spheres in popular culture" into "Dyson sphere", explaining that, "There's no need for this to exist as a standalone article. It contains only two paragaphs, and all the information in the first already exists within Dyson sphere. The second can be moved more or less as it is into the Fiction section." This was done on February 12, 2023, following an intermittent discussion, in which only TompaDompa opposed merging. What was left of the article became the current section, "Dyson spheres in fiction". And since that time, TompaDompa and MichaelMaggs have continued to revert nearly every contribution made by other editors to this section—the majority of these being editors attempting to mention or discuss "Relics", which by my count has been deleted from both articles fifteen times since late 2021, always within a few hours of having been added.

What I did: thinking that I could resolve the impasse by providing sufficient sources, I added the following paragraph, focusing on how the Dyson sphere in "Relics" was portrayed, rather than the episode's plot, which was mostly about the Enterprise's attempts to escape the Dyson sphere, and the guest appearance of James Doohan as Montgomery Scott from the original Star Trek:

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".

I cited a secondary source, the Star Trek: The Next Generation Companion, and used the "cite episode" template to cite the episode for its own contents, along with the novelization, and an interview with Freeman Dyson commenting on the episode. I later discovered that this had previously been included in "Dyson spheres in popular culture". I naïvely thought that these sources and careful focusing on the Dyson sphere itself would be sufficient for this inclusion of "Relics" to survive.

My addition was published at 8:59 on March 20; at 9:23 MichaelMaggs deleted the third sentence as "not relevant"; at 9:24 he deleted the second sentence for the same reason; at 9:26 TompaDompa tagged the citations to the episode and novel for being primary sources, as MichaelMaggs had already deleted the secondary source that I cited for the details; and at 9:28 TompaDompa deleted what remained of my contribution, asserting that it should not be there without proper sourcing, that Dyson's comment belonged on the article about the episode, and not here, and on this talk page asserting that "Relics" did not belong in this article unless in WP:PROPORTION to its importance in non-fiction literature about Dyson spheres, citing MOS:POPCULTURE, WP:CARGO, and WP:IPCV, and subsequently WP:Core content policy, WP:Policies and guidelines, WP:Consensus, WP:Neutrality, WP:MINORASPECT, WP:Verify, WP:Notability, WP:Weight, WP:ASPECT, and several others.

After numerous rounds of arguing and revising, this is what remains:

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; in a 2011 interview, Dyson said that he enjoyed the episode, although he considered the sphere depicted to be "nonsense".

Which is clunky, and says nothing about how the Dyson sphere is portrayed, except for misstating what Freeman Dyson thought of it; he didn't say that the depiction of the Dyson sphere in the episode was nonsense; he appears to have been referring to the concept generally, rather than one particular realization of it. And the tone of the argument still seems to be that even this much is unjustified, because it is out of proportion to the importance of "Relics" to the subject of Dyson spheres. Apparently, although the details of the Dyson sphere in "Relics" are verifiable in both primary and secondary sources, the episode merits only a "passing mention" in non-fiction literature about Dyson spheres, or general literature about science fiction.

Issues: which brings me at last to the core questions:

1. Is "Relics" sufficiently noteworthy to be mentioned under "Dyson spheres in fiction"?
2. If so, should that mention be limited to the fact that a Dyson sphere occurs in the episode, or is the manner in which the Dyson sphere is portrayed also relevant? The answer to this question would probably apply to the other examples cited as well. The current argument seems to be that no occurrence of Dyson spheres in fiction is entitled to more discussion than occurs about it in non-fiction literature about Dyson spheres, or literature about science fiction generally.

As I said, I expect lots of opinions about this, including from the people who responded above. But I'm hoping to hear from editors who haven't previously weighed in. P Aculeius (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I daresay you have not given serious consideration to the cited policies and whatnot, or else you would have realized that you have listed multiple duplicates. I also daresay that you must not have read what I wrote particularly closely, seeing as you seem to think that I want the current mention removed (the tone of the argument still seems to be that even this much is unjustified, because it is out of proportion to the importance of "Relics" to the subject of Dyson spheres).

thinking that I could resolve the impasse by providing sufficient sources – You could have, and the great tragedy is that you still do not seem to understand what providing sufficient sources entails. Had you provided sources on the overarching topic, rather than sources on the Star Trek episode, the inclusion itself would not have been controversial (though the level of detail might have). Instead, I and ThaddeusSholto eventually tracked down decent (even if by no means great) sources for you.[1][2]

The core of the disagreement is that I think the level of coverage should be determined in accordance with WP:PROPORTION, a non-negotiable WP:Core content policy which states An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject., whereas you think that the coverage in sources on the overarching topic (Dyson spheres/Dyson spheres in fiction) is not what should determine how we cover it here. TompaDompa (talk) 18:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

The Robert Wright reference is clearly a secondary reference and directly quotes the Dyson of 'Dyson sphere' on the topic of a 'Dyson sphere'. That short quote should appear in the article.

I guess the paragraph by @P Aculeius which starts "The USS Enterprise is trapped in a Dyson Sphere..." adopted a storytelling tone at odds with Wikipedia generally and that may have precipitated the subsequent actions.

1 Yes, mentioned under fiction, as seems to be the case now.

2 Yes, limited as seems to be the case now. However, the direct quote from the Wright article is clearly notable even if that causes extra space to be devoted to this particular fictional representation. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:45, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Obviusly Relics should be mentioned, and in depth. It's one of the most prominent examples of Dyson spheres in fiction and it makes no sense for the article to omit it because Star Trek is somehow not high-brow enough.

The subject is explicitly *fiction*, for crying out loud, of course we cannot demand an academic treatment of it. Tercer (talk) 18:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I suspect that you may not have read much if any of the above discussion. Obviusly Relics should be mentioned, and in depth: an opinion that contradicts WP:PROPORTION. It's one of the most prominent examples of Dyson spheres in fiction: Already dealt with in the discussion - the topic must be handled "with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject" per WP:BALANCE; the number of viewers does not determine prominence or weight. it makes no sense for the article to omit it: never suggested. because Star Trek is somehow not high-brow enough: never suggested. of course we cannot demand an academic treatment of it: never suggested. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I might also add that academic treatment of fiction-related subjects is not exactly unheard of—see e.g. Mars in fiction § Further reading. TompaDompa (talk) 21:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

You're just repeating the same points from the discussion above. WP:BLUDGEONING won't make anybody agree with you. Tercer (talk) 23:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Now that was just unfair. MichaelMaggs made one comment in the entire #Star Trek section above. TompaDompa (talk) 00:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I refuse to interact with you due to your conduct at Spanish empire. Please do not write to me again. Tercer (talk) 06:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

While someone might reasonably infer that the reason for continually deleting something from Star Trek is because the editors deleting it don't regard it as serious literature, you did write above, quoting the entirety of the paragraph I wrote (after the first sentence was cut down) with the exception of Freeman Dyson's reaction to it: "None of that adds anything to this article. It is no more than trivial Star Trek trivia that fails WP:PROPORTION" (emphasis supplied). I think that makes a strong case that the editors who keep deleting it don't regard it as worthy of mention because it comes from Star Trek. And while there is academic treatment of some science-related topics in fiction, the example given—Mars—is a much more serious topic with much more scientific and non-scientific literature about it than a hypothetical space object that few scientists believe exists or ever could exist, and which the person most associated with the concept referred to—in connection with "Relics"—as "nonsense". P Aculeius (talk) 00:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll refer you to this comment I made above for some examples of serious literature covering the topic of Dyson spheres in fiction. The literature may not be as extensive as we would like, but it does exist. TompaDompa (talk) 00:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

someone might reasonably infer that the reason for continually deleting something from Star Trek is because the editors deleting it don't regard it as serious literature — You know what, no. That's not a reasonable inference (especially not when explicit references have been repeatedly made to the inadequacy of the sourcing provided). That's just assuming bad faith (or, which is not much better, assuming that the editors in question let their personal feelings dictate content). TompaDompa (talk) 00:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps "reasonably" is too much. But it's a natural inference, because this regularly happens on Wikipedia: references to popular culture are frequently deleted not because they're unimportant or irrelevant, but because editors just don't want them to be there. The language I quoted above certainly suggests that's at least part of the issue here, and the repeated deletions with no attempt to supply sources—until ThaddeusSholto helpfully found two magazine articles mentioning "Relics"—suggests that the material was never taken seriously. P Aculeius (talk) 02:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Before ThaddeusSholto added proper sources mentioning "Relics", you know who else did? I did. After telling you I would look. But you removed them. That alone should tell you that you're wrong about what's happening and why.

Now you really should refrain from assuming others' motives. Would you believe me if I told you that for me, it all comes down to WP:PROPORTION? Could you entertain the possibility that I have in fact truly meant what I have been telling you all along? Is it conceivable to you that editors might approach a topic like this dispassionately, without involving their personal feelings on the matter—or even not having any strong feelings about it one way or the other? TompaDompa (talk) 05:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you did add two sources with passing mentions of the episode, while simultaneously deleting a secondary source that actually discussed the episode. And that was several hours after you deleted what remained of the paragraph, following MichaelMaggs having deleted half of it minutes earlier, and after you tagbombed it after being reverted. And some ten separate comments into the above argument. But four passing mentions of something aren't great sourcing, since they can't be used to verify anything other than its existence; and a good part of why this argument keeps going is your insistence that any details about the Dyson sphere aren't proportionate and can't be sourced to the actual episode, while you also deleted the secondary source that could have been used to verify them. So I don't see why I should be thanking you for doing that, when in reality you're waging an endless war to keep what seems like perfectly reasonable material out of the article. P Aculeius (talk) 15:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

The source you're referring to that I removed is Star Trek: The Next Generation Companion; I hope I don't have to explain the difference in kind between that source and the others to you. And if you would characterize the coverage of "Relics" in the sources about the actual topic here as passing mentions, how on Earth can you think increased coverage would be in WP:PROPORTION to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject? TompaDompa (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Since the topic is "Dyson spheres in fiction", the material only needs to be proportionate to its importance relative to other Dyson spheres in fiction. The scope of the topic didn't change merely because "Dyson spheres in popular culture" was merged here. And you can't prevent the expansion of one item to a size that would render it useful to readers simply by leaving all of the other items undeveloped. Other editors are just as entitled to decide what they think is proportionate to the importance of an item within its topic as you are.

And you simply do not understand what verifiability is. A primary source is valid for its own contents, not invalid because articles should cite secondary sources. Secondary sources are valid for what they say about primary sources. Hamlet is a perfectly valid source for what occurs or is said in the play. A book about Shakespeare's plays is perfectly valid as a source verifying what occurs or is said in the play. Your rationale seems to be, "you cannot cite a work for its own contents, even if anyone who views it can verify what is cited to it. A secondary source about the thing cited cannot be used to verify it. You cannot include any details unless they are mentioned in sources that are not at all concerned with them."

If the article about Danish monarchs contains a section about "Danish monarchs in fiction", it would be absurd to limit discussion of Hamlet to "a Danish monarch appears in Shakespeare's play Hamlet. Josef Frederiksen, author of The Danish Monarchy through the Ages, said in an interview, 'I've watched Hamlet. It's a great piece of drama. Of course it's utter nonsense—no such events ever occurred!'" and to give as your reason for excluding any details about Hamlet, "academic sources about the Danish monarchy only have passing mentions of Hamlet. Anything else is not proportionate to its importance to the subject, and only belongs in the article about Hamlet. It does not belong under 'Danish monarchs in fiction'." Yet this is your argument. P Aculeius (talk) 17:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I understand that primary sources can be used for WP:Verifying things; I said as much days ago. Do you understand that they do not count towards establishing WP:Weight or WP:Notability? Regardless of whether we take the topic of the article (Dyson spheres) or section (Dyson spheres in fiction) into consideration here, we still need to abide by WP:PROPORTION. You don't have to like that policy, but it behooves you to abide by it.

I would suggest you read the essay WP:IPCV, in particular the part that says Although some references may be plainly verified by primary sources, this does not demonstrate the significance of the reference. [...] If a cultural reference is genuinely significant it should be possible to find a reliable secondary source that supports that judgment. [...] Absence of these secondary sources should be seen as a sign of limited significance, not an invitation to draw inference from primary sources. You may also want to familiarize yourself with MOS:POPCULT. TompaDompa (talk) 18:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

...this regularly happens on Wikipedia: references to popular culture are frequently deleted not because they're unimportant or irrelevant, but because editors just don't want them to be there. I don't deny that that happens on Wikipedia; but that's most emphatically not the case here. All of the resistance to your desire to add in-universe Star Trek plot details is policy and guideline based. Without reliable secondary sources those details can fairly be classed as trivia (ie not suitable for the encyclopedia), not because I or anyone else "don't like them" but because policy and guideline tell us they are not suitable for the encyclopedia. To be honest I feel this has been explained to you more than enough times. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

A description of the Dyson sphere is not a "plot detail"; the description is not important to the plot, and it is not necessary to describe what happens to the characters or how the plot is resolved in order to describe the Dyson sphere. But just saying that "Dyson spheres occur in the following literature" is not nearly as helpful to readers as describing how Dyson spheres are actually portrayed in that literature:

How big are they? How much habitable space do they provide, what kind of star do they orbit, are they unique or are there many of them, who built them, who inhabits them, and what happens to the Dyson spheres? These are the kinds of things that a genuinely useful treatment of any occurrence in fiction would provide. Of course not all of these questions can be answered for each instance, and there may be other relevant details. These matters go toward how realistically or implausibly Dyson spheres are portrayed in fiction, what their purpose might be, and soforth.

Instances with few or no details might indeed constitute the stereotypical "big dumb object" mentioned in this section; more detailed examples do not, and so the descriptions of Dyson spheres occurring in fiction also go toward justifying or refuting this trope in various instances. Such things are not "trivial trivia"; they are the essentials of a section such as "Dyson spheres in fiction". P Aculeius (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

When based on what reliable secondary sources report, agreed. The difference between us is that you want to include all that detail based only on the TV show, which policy and guidelines don't allow. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

A work of fiction is perfectly valid as a source for its own contents. You do not need a secondary source simply to relate, "character A said 'B'," or "Tarzan is orphaned as an infant and raised by apes." But knowing that primary sources used for any purposes are frowned upon, and that anything based on them is likely to be deleted, I went out of my way to cite a secondary source for the details. You deleted it along with those details, because you said they were not relevant. Then when I restored them, TompaDompa deleted the secondary source again, tagged the remaining parts for being cited to the episode and novel, deleted the reference to the novel along with its citation, and then deleted everything that remained, because the only citation that remained after deleting the secondary source was a primary source—except for the interview, which he also deleted, stating that it belonged in another article, not here. P Aculeius (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think rehashing the same argument with these two editors will ever get you anywhere. You've already got two independent opinions on the dispute, mine and Johnjbarton's, and both were on your side. Just restore the content and be done with it. Tercer (talk) 18:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

The current revision of the article gives the ST:TNG episode due weight. Readers with interest in learning more can follow the link to the article about the episode. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 00:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

My 2 cents is that Relics uses the Dyson sphere as a mere plot device. It was needed to:

1. Keep the Enterprise away while Scotty and Geordi find their own solution. Numerous other episodes used some form of sticky space cloud or broken engines for the same purpose.
2. Provide some threat to the crew via the closed doorway and exploding sun. Again, plenty of other ways to do this, exploding suns seeming to be a common theme.

The story itself doesn't really explore the sphere, its implications or anything that is unique about the sphere. It doesn't look at anything like what life inside a sphere would have been - eg always looking inwards and not outwards, lack of awareness of the rest of the universe (See For the World Is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky), practically limitless energy, practically limitless inhabitable area, diversity due to so much inhabitable area, possible divisions of the population, possible reasons for dying out. It is one of my favourite TNG stories due to exploring Scotty being a relic of a bygone era, wallowing in old memories but still being useful/relevant to the youngsters - just like older people in today's society. But the Dyson sphere is still very much just a plot device. A very short paragraph is all it needs.  Stepho  talk  00:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Reference list
References

Dyson Sphere and Physics

Good morning,

I am currently in high school and I do my oral on the spheres of Dyson and I look for I find nothing about it on the internet, on the subject of thermodynamics and fluid mechanics.

If you know anything about this I’m interested,

Thanks in advance 90.3.187.108 (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)