This article is within the scope of
WikiProject Popular culture, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Popular cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Popular cultureTemplate:WikiProject Popular culturePopular culture articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to
Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
This article was nominated for
deletion on 10 April 2011. The result of
the discussion was keep.
Niven
Larry Niven wrote a book called
Rainbow Mars, in which all the Martian civilizations imagined by
Edgar Rice Burroughs,
C.S. Lewis,
H.G. Wells, etc., exist together on the same crowded planet. Someone inevitably will write a "Rainbow Tau Ceti," in which all the fictional worlds imagined around Tau Ceti orbit that star.
Das Baz 18:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)reply
Maybe the "C" in "Tau Alpha C" stands for "Ceti."
66.99.0.56 16:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC) I think this comment is mine, but I am not certain. It was years ago.
Das Baz, aka Erudil 19:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)reply
The first time I did some editing in this article, there were about a dozen fictional worlds associated with Tau Ceti. By now there are over thirty. Das Baz, aka Erudil 22:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Das Baz (
talk •
contribs) It is absurd to say the comment is "unsigned" when it has both of my signatures, Das Baz and Erudil 18:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Tau Ceti is not from Halo, the planet there is called Chi Ceti, that should be deleted... - AvidWriter —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
71.221.116.142 (
talk) 21:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Noteworthy?
This
In Jim Erjavec's The Caverns of Mare Cetus, Tau Ceti is the parent star to a lifeless world that is riddled with spectacular subterranean passages. The Tau Ceti System has thirteen planets and 144 satellites. Mare Cetus is the third planet from Tau Ceti; Novia Cetus, the home planet of the explorers investigating the caverns on Mare Cetus, is the second planet. The novel is set in the year 2165.
is a self-published book. It hardly seems noteworthy enough for inclusion. Opinions? --
SandChigger (
talk) 03:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Update on Rainbow Tau Ceti
By my latest count, there are at least 39 fictional planets orbiting Tau Ceti. "Rainbow Tau Ceti" will be a huge Saga.
Das Baz, aka Erudil 16:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)reply
second closest star to the sun
The page states "Tau Ceti is the second closest star to the Sun (after Alpha Centauri A) having spectral class G", which can be misread as "Tau Ceti is the second closest star to the Sun, having spectral class G" which would be wrong. However, it should be read as "Tau Ceti is the second closest star to the Sun having spectral class G", which is correct, since only Alpha Centauri A has spectral class G and is nearer to the sun (see
list of nearest stars).
Perhaps some native speaker can change the sentence in a way that avoids this possible misunderstanding?
--
Andreas Ley (
talk) 10:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Someone had changed it to "second closest main sequence" star, which is not true. Sirius and various red dwarfs are closer. Believe I have it correct now.
Pekoebrew (
talk) 00:52, 27 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Bodacious Space Pirates (the light novel series)…
… is mentioned twice, once under literature and once under comics. Light novels aren't comics (in any way). The comics reference should IMO be removed, however the text there is better, so it should be moved to literature.
If nobody has a good reason why not, I'll do it in a couple of days. As a very occasional contributor, I don't like to make changes without asking first.
Lalo Martins (
talk) 18:19, 11 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Hm, actually there's a manga adaptation. I'll just edit to make that explicit. And why not do the same for the anime while I'm at it
Lalo Martins (
talk) 18:22, 11 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Recent deletion of this page (c. 2021-11-20)
The content of this page was recently deleted and replaced with a redirect to
Stars and planetary systems in fiction, on the grounds that the editor "[had] not found enough
MOS:POPCULT-compliant coverage of this topic to justify a stand-alone article."
There were several distinct and (mostly) unrelated issues with this:
Although this article was originally split from the
Tau Ceti article 15 years ago (!), it's now a subarticle of
Stars and planetary systems in fiction — that article contains a section "Tau Ceti" which consists solely of a link to this page. Replacing this article with a redirect there simply created a contentless loop.
... the general topic of "Tau Ceti in fiction" would need to have separate coverage, rather than individual items having relevant references.
... the lede of this page would fall under
MOS:POPCULT at all.
This was, arguably, an end-run around properly listing this page on AfD. I don't think
WP:IGNORE applies here.
I've since found that this was one of a collection of similar deletions of pages about astronomical locations in fiction by a single editor, and have reverted those which hadn't already been reverted.
(Note: This article previously contained a reference linking to
Maia's Kickstarter page; this reference cannot easily be restored due to the blacklisting of kickstarter.com since its original inclusion.)
I've reverted
TompaDompa's changes again, as they've effectively tried the same tactic but from a different angle. They make a good initial point about Popcult, but it's nothing that can't be fixed by checking the source articles in each case. All the entries have articles of their own, and are notable in their own right, so it shouldn't be too difficult to check them to see how relevant Tau Ceti is in each case. Some of the removed entries are already sourced, so may be ok as they stand.
In the past I've been through and removed obvious non-notable entries, but I think this article can be saved.
Chaheel Riens (
talk) 07:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)reply
There's no such thing as a specific "
MOS:POPCULT-compliant source[s]" - there's only
WP:RELIABLE, and POPCULT confirms this with the phrase "all such references should be discussed in at least one
reliable secondary source which specifically links the cultural item to the subject of the article" - it only says the source has to be reliable, not a science fiction based source as yours appear to be. For example,
Tau Ceti (video game) (which is probably how I watchlisted this article in the first place) passes inclusion because there is a reliable source that corroborates that the entire game is based and set on Tau Ceti - the game is called "Tau Ceti". It doesn't have to be mentioned in scifi material, any reliable source is sufficient, and many of the entries either already have these - or based on their general notability - shouldn't be too hard to find. Those that can't be found can be removed - I have no bones about that, but I feel mass deletion based on possibly over-restrictive interpretation of policy is not the way to start.
Chaheel Riens (
talk) 08:57, 24 November 2021 (UTC)reply
You're mistaken. Per
MOS:POPCULT: Cultural references about a subject (for example how it is presented in a movie, song, television show, etc.) should not be included simply because they exist. Rather, all such references should be discussed in at least one reliable secondary source which specifically links the cultural item to the subject of the article. This source should cover the subject of the article in some depth; it should not be a source about the cultural item which merely mentions the subject. The subject of the article is
Tau Ceti in fiction. The cultural item is e.g.
Tau Ceti (video game). The sources need to discuss the former, not merely the latter. The sources on this article don't. That's what's meant by the sources not being
MOS:POPCULT-compliant. None of the entries comply with
MOS:POPCULT. All of the entries need to be removed for not complying with
MOS:POPCULT or else be adjusted such that they do comply with
MOS:POPCULT. I've looked through sources with a high likelihood of providing
MOS:POPCULT-compliant coverage of these kinds of topics—as indeed they do for several others such as
Neptune in fiction—without finding such coverage. The next step seems obvious to me: cleanup the list so no entries that fail to meet
MOS:POPCULT remain. That will leave precisely zero entries at present. Consequently, we don't have enough content for a stand-alone article at present, though we might in the future if sources that provide the kind of coverage that
MOS:POPCULT mandates are located. We can't have a list with no entries, and the most obvious redirect target is
Stars and planetary systems in fiction.
TompaDompa (
talk) 09:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)reply
I'm kind of coming round to your way of thinking. I don't agree with it, but that's why we have policy - so when there is disagreement there's a policy to decide. I think POPCULT is unnecessarily strict, and could do with broadening slightly - it seems ridiculous that a game called "Tau Ceti", based on Tau Ceti is not a valid entry on an article called "Tau Ceti in fiction". I think the issue for me is based on article title and interpretation - "Pop culture" and "XXXX in fiction" are not necessarily the same thing. "Pop culture" could be as simple as a passing mention, whereas "in fiction" means a broader scope and by definition requires more substantial mention - such as being a plot device, rather than a mention. For this general notability seems to be sufficient. I still stand by my reversions, but I'll think about how to present them as modifications in an attempt to meet the current popcult requirements.
Chaheel Riens (
talk) 07:36, 26 November 2021 (UTC)reply
The problem is that complying with
MOS:POPCULT would require an entirely new set of sources to base the article on. There is no way to rewrite the current version to make it
MOS:POPCULT-compliant based on the sources we have now, because the sources themselves do not meet the requirements. The reason we have these requirements is that we don't want lists of examples, we want analysis. The essay
WP:CARGO explains this rather well: Collecting raw data does not produce an analysis. The raw data can be examples, that demonstrate the analysis. (There are some elephant jokes in
elephant joke, for example.) But simply amassing huge piles of them doesn't make an analysis. What makes an analysis is finding the works of experts in the field who have done analyses of the raw data, and then condensing and summarizing their published analyses into the article. (Collecting raw data and then producing our own novel analyses of those data is, of course, original research
that is forbidden here.). For now, I don't see any other course of action than redirecting this (I would merge instead, but there is nothing properly sourced to merge).
TompaDompa (
talk) 01:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Revisiting this a couple of years later, I have found two sources that actually do cover the overarching topic of
Tau Ceti in fiction:
Reactor (formerly
Tor.com) is a reliable outlet for science fiction and fantasy content, and
Andrew Liptak [
Wikidata has been published in Clarkesworld Magazine (as well as the aforementioned Tor.com, for that matter) and so should meet
WP:SPS. Unfortunately, the combined coverage in these two sources is rather thin, and the sources are themselves
listicles, which is less than ideal. As such, I don't think we can use these two sources alone to create a stand-alone article that's up to snuff, but it's a start in terms of locating sources at least.
TompaDompa (
talk) 20:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply