Talk:Mars in fiction/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Doom (1993 video game)

This was added by editor Ssj weegee and reverted, wondering why. From its well-sourced 'Legacy' section this seems an important addition to this page: "Doom has been termed "inarguably the most important" first-person shooter, as well as the "father" of the genre.[103][104] Although not the first in the genre, it was the game with the greatest impact.[103][104][105] Dan Pinchbeck in Doom: Scarydarkfast (2013) noted the direct influence of Doom's design choices on those of first-person and third-person shooter games two decades later, as influenced by the games released in the intervening years.[106]". Randy Kryn (talk) 13:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The importance of Doom to the history of video games, or indeed first-person shooters specifically, is orthogonal to the question that is relevant to whether it should be included here: its relative importance to the topic of this article—Mars in fiction—as judged by sources on that specific topic. If one surveys the relevant literature, as I have in bringing this to WP:Featured article status, one finds that it (and video games and general, for that matter) is covered infrequently, briefly, and not by any of the highest-quality sources. In other words, it is a WP:MINORASPECT. TompaDompa (talk) 15:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

You reverted a very similar edit of mine, after I attempted to source it to meet your requirements, and I'd like to call that into question more publicly. I think Doom is a relevant aside to take when discussing Mars, Phobos, and Deimos in the popular culture - the article is not titled "Mars in literature", nor are video games often excluded from other articles along the same line as this one. Given that multiple people seem to believe this is relevant, and also given it has remained an (until recently, an inaccurate) aside on the article for nearly 20 years, I think it should remain on the page with a proper citation and clarification of the roles these celestial bodies play in Doom, probably one of the most famous depictions of Mars in video games.

In addition, as per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, the "normal protocol" specifies that you should attempt to "improve [a passage in an article] if you can", rather than outright deleting it. Unawoken (talk) 03:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The previous aside was not on the article for "nearly 20 years"—I added it back in May of this year. The source you added (the Doom manual) was, as I said when I removed the aside, not an adequate source for the purpose. This removal was indeed what I was referring to when I said "see previous edits on the subject". It doesn't really matter whether editors think this is relevant to include—what matters is whether sources on the overarching topic—Mars in fiction—do, and by and large they don't. See our WP:Core content policy WP:PROPORTION: articles are supposed treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. Video games are mentioned in the article, in the "In the new millennium" section, and that coverage is comparatively brief because the treatment of video games in the literature on the subject is brief (as noted at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mars in fiction/archive1, Games—video or otherwise—barely get mentioned at all (only by a minority of sources, not by any of the highest-quality sources, and only briefly).). If you have discovered some as-yet unused source on the overarching topic of Mars in fiction the relative weighting of different aspects may have to be reconsidered, but absent that we have to treat this as a very WP:MINORASPECT because that's what the sources do. TompaDompa (talk) 03:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that we need better sourcing, specifically talking about Doom in the context of its use of Mars, if we're going to include a reference to it. I think WP:BRD applies here, and we're in the Discuss phase, so I don't see a problem with how this is being handled. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:44, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I can and will do so. The moons of Mars are the setting of the first two episodes of the original 1993 Doom game, Doom 3 is set on the surface of Mars, and the later Doom games are also set in and around Mars. Obviously, I am quite a new editor, so I may require some pointers on how and where to accomplish this in a satisfactory manner, something I've appreciated that TompaDompa for doing thusfar, even if we have disagreed. Unawoken (talk) 03:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Of course it's relevant to the topic. Read the quote in the article (quoted above in my comment). A major influence in the history of gaming. The article's name is 'Mars in fiction' and the Martian moons have been included. If the moons are included, so too should this important trendsetting video game. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:48, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

That quote is about the importance of Doom to video games. Surely you understand that it is possible for Doom to be important to the history of video games without being important to the history of Mars in fiction? Surely you understand that an article on Mars in fiction should be based on sources on Mars in fiction, not sources on Doom? Surely you understand the basics of WP:PROPORTION—treating each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject ("on the subject" being key here)? TompaDompa (talk) 03:53, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

His argument is that Doom is not just a video game, but an important video game, hence why it's alright to have a mention of a very important game where it otherwise might be a minor aspect. Unawoken (talk) 03:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Sure, but that is simply not how WP:PROPORTION works. It's the importance to the subject matter, not overall importance, that matters. TompaDompa (talk) 03:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

How can Doom not be important to the subject matter of Mars in fiction, regardless if you believe Doom being an important game is relevant, if the games take place on Mars and prominently feature depictions of them in all the main series entries? I could see this if the games merely mentioned Mars offhand or only partially took place there, but the main setting of all the major games is Mars. Unawoken (talk) 04:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not for us to say. It's for the sources to say. That's the essence of WP:PROPORTION, a WP:Core content policy. As science fiction scholar Gary Westfahl notes, there are thousands upon thousands of potentially relevant titles. Obviously, we cannot (and should not want to) include all of them in an article like this. TompaDompa (talk) 04:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

This game, however silly you may think it is, rises above the "thousands and thousands", which is what we have attempted to demonstrate to you. It was worthy of being included less than a week ago, so why put your foot down now? Unawoken (talk) 04:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

It was already dubious when I added it back in May. It was added to placate a FAC reviewer who objected to the omission of video games from the article—an objection that as far as I can tell did not come from any assessment of the sources but rather that editor's expectations. It has not become less dubious since then but more, for two main reasons: the coverage of video games in this article has been expanded and the article itself has been made lengthier. As I said in a previous section, this article is getting quite lengthy at over 8,000 words and approaching 200 different works covered. There is only so much more that can be added before we run into a "more is less" situation, and there is already a fair amount of stuff with pretty strong sourcing that has been omitted in the interest of brevity. I'm quite wary of adding more stuff with comparatively weak sourcing behind it; it's difficult to justify at this point and getting increasingly so. We're reaching a point where where we have to start considering "killing our darlings" by removing stuff when adding new things. TompaDompa (talk) 10:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out there are certainly lots of red links on this article, linking to books by authors that I would certainly deem irrelevant to the main article - should these also be deleted on my own whim for Wikipedia:PROPORTION? If not, how are they relevant but Doom is not? Unawoken (talk) 04:19, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

That's the whole point here. The red links are relevant because they are covered by the sources on "mars in fiction" and doom is not. We shouldn't be making content decisions based on our own thoughts about what should be there. Articles should be written in a Sources first way (based on the best quality sources about the topic at hand {which is "Mars in fiction"}) Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 06:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

As I have tried to explain several times above, it's not about what you or I or any other editor deem important/relevant but what the sources do. That's core to how Wikipedia works. The works are included because sources on the overarching topic—Mars in fiction—deem them important. Several of these works were added before the articles were created, including Bellona's Husband: A Romance, A Honeymoon in Space, and A Plunge into Space. Those links used to be red, but turned blue (and indeed, those three are now WP:Good articles). Whether an article exists already is a pretty poor indicator of whether one should exist. This has also been discussed in a previous secion on this talk page. TompaDompa (talk) 10:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, if a fiction-based topic relates to Mars then it fits this page, especially such a major topic in its field (in this case, video gaming). Welcome to Wikipedia Unawoken. In this instance this is the talk page portion of what could be a WP:OWN question. The article is well-written for people who like this style (I prefer lists of topics such as this) but certainly should not be closed-doored to reasonable and sourced entries. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

If I may be so bold as to quote Cakelot1 from above: you may want to read the WP:STEWARDSHIP and WP:FAOWN parts. TompaDompa (talk) 04:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Neither of those absolve you from deciding on the content of the page near-unilaterally, which you are doing. I agree that this is Wikipedia:Ownership of content. Unawoken (talk) 04:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

No, but having surveyed the literature puts me in a position of being able to assess whether something is a WP:MINORASPECT, which in this case it is. You can take my word for it or you can read the sources yourself. If you think my assessment that the sources treat this as a WP:MINORASPECT is incorrect, all you have to do is point to the sources on the topic of this article—Mars in fiction—that contradict that assessment. If you think there are WP:OWNERSHIP issues, the proper venue is WP:ANI. TompaDompa (talk) 10:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Literature and your own expertise should not be the sole considerations for what is important. Video games are not discussed as extensively in literature as other media are, yet they are ultimately important to pop culture as a whole. Other games are mentioned, games that, in my opinion, utilize Mars less than Doom, but you believe they belong there because they're "better sourced", which is just frankly illogical. You may keep throwing around WP links if you like, but I see plain ownership issues in your inability to compromise with people. Unawoken (talk) 13:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

My level of expertise is immaterial, as is your opinion about how much the different games utilize Mars. The sources are what matters. Video games are mentioned in this article in the "In the new millennium" section as an example of how Mars fiction has diversified in that time (the diversification being a point brought up by the sources). That of course necessitates using games from the new millennium as examples, so Doom unfortunately doesn't fit. That single prose mention alongside the quote box in the same section is WP:PROPORTIONAL to the coverage video games get in the literature on the topic of this article: Mars in fiction. If anything, video games are mentioned too much based on how the sources treat them. We don't have to agree with the sources in that regard, but that's how it is.

Feel free to bring up your WP:OWN concerns at WP:ANI. TompaDompa (talk) 17:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The entire policy may or may not have relevance to this discussion. The suggested addition fits this page topic well, and I can't really see why you object so strongly to an obviously related addition. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Surely you are not suggesting that we suspend WP:Core content policies here? 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) 10:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

You have not proven that doom a major topic in this field (that being "Mars in fiction"). That isn't descried by what editors recon should be important, but what is mentioned in high quality sources about the subject. This is fundamental to writing good articles about fiction (see WP:IPCV) "If a cultural reference is genuinely significant it should be possible to find a reliable secondary source that supports that judgment." (again significant to the actual topic of the article "mars in fiction", not video games). The reason TompaDompa is protective is because the reason that this is an FA, is that it's no longer the WP:TVTROPES style list of everything that happen to be set on mars (which could be an infinitely long indiscriminate list, soured to a bunch of manuals and reviews). Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 06:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

For example, if someone finds an article on video games that says "Doom was an early example of a video game set on Mars", or "Other planets have long been used as settings, for games. Mars provides the backdrop for Doom, and other examples are..." that wouldn't be much but it would make the start of a case for mentioning it. It doesn't have to be an entire article about the use of Mars in Doom. But if we don't have that sort of reference to support mentioning it, we have no reason not to mention Leather Goddesses of Phobos and every other video game (and novel, short story, and film) that mentions Mars in any way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Zak McKracken and the Alien Mindbenders might have a stronger claim for inclusion than some others, given that it actually "explains" the pyramids and the Face on Mars. But without a secondary source putting it in context, it is just one more example of a trope, and not something that should be in this article, but perhaps included in a List of video games set on Mars if somebody makes one. —Kusma (talk) 11:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I would be open to helping create a Mars in pop culture or List of video games set on Mars page, mostly because I believe it's worth more than having a sentence dedicated to these games. Perhaps, with TompaDompa's permission, of course, a "Main article" link could be included somewhere on this page where video games are discussed. Unawoken (talk) 13:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

"Pop culture" and "fiction" would be basically the same thing. "Mars in Pop culture can't be anything else other than a redirect to this page, or to Mars in culture (although there is some overlap between both articles). Cambalachero (talk) 17:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

You don't need my permission, but it seems to me that the most logical place for a List of video games set on Mars link would be in the "See also" section and/or the {{Mars}} template. I can't say I think creating such an article would be a particularly good idea, however—List of films set on Mars is not exactly a high-quality piece of Wikipedia content, and that's unfortunately par for the course when it comes to that kind of list. TompaDompa (talk) 17:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I can see that this citation is already used in the article and just so happens to provide the context for Doom as well. I will edit the article to provide the context for Doom using this citation. Treetus (talk) 14:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's the source that was used for the aforementioned dubious inclusion back in May and which was recently removed. The reason I didn't include Doom in the "In the new millennium" section alongside the other mentions of video games is that 1993 is not in the new millennium. TompaDompa (talk) 16:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

See my latest edit. If this is still unacceptable to you then I don't know what to say except this has been a very frustrating experience for what should be a simple aside acknowledging a very popular depiction of Mars in pop culture. Unawoken (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Adding Doom to the "See also" section basically amounts to reintroducing a list format through the back door, which I think is a self-evidently terrible idea. TompaDompa (talk) 17:51, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Then why are there other entires in the list to begin with? Why does it only become a problem when Doom is mentioned? Unawoken (talk) 17:58, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Per MOS:ALSO, see also is for related or comparable articles, in this case other articles about mars in culture. I don't think it's a good idea to use it to list example, TVTROPES style, because you could realistically list an infinite number of works that the sources don't cover but individual editors feel are very important to be included anyway. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 18:03, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

This is clearly not just individual editors, there are several others in this thread who believe it should be included and have come up against you and TompaDompa repeatedly. I have no option but to escalate this to the admins, if nothing else than to get other opinions. Unawoken (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I think more than just me TomapaDoma have been in this discussion explaining to you why this might not be the best fit for the page; Kusma for example, who you will note is an admin. If you think we've broken any rules than by all means, report to WP:AN, but if you think that we've just come to a content impasses, you might want to try a diffent Dispute resolution method first. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 18:16, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding this discussion. The thread is TompaDompa, Cakelot1, and Doom. Thank you. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 18:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The citation used here refers to Doom as a franchise. Specifically, the author of this citation places particular emphasis on the plot taking place on Mars, which solely follows the narrative of the franchise from its modernization in the 21st century. In case you didn't know, the Doom narrative before 2004 did not directly include Mars at all, just its two moons (and Earth). This is mentioned in the citation, but it is mentioned only for context. The reason why I deliberately linked the franchise as a whole in the example and not the 1993 game is not only because it better represents the franchise's mythos concerning Mars but also because it concisely fit into your "in the new millennium" formatting while also remaining true to the citation it came from. This was the rationale for my edit. Treetus (talk) 17:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

not that i should be butting in, but doesn't this entire discussion imply that if there's an article about how "doom takes place on mars sometimes by the way", then it can be added to the new millenium secion with little opposition?

that aside, you don't actually get a lot of marsage until doom 3, being mostly set on its moons, and even then deimos was sent to brazil hell, so if any doom games were to be counted, i don't think '93 would be one of them. i'm all for seeing if '16 can be added though cogsan • (give me attention) • (see my deeds) 20:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@Cog-san: Any time you have something substantial to add to a discussion you absolutely "should be butting in." CityOfSilver 23:07, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

While that is a pretty good point, I've already tried to add the Doom franchise as a properly-sourced example alongside the games Red Faction and Destiny. TompaDompa has already reverted it, his reason for doing so is that the original Doom is a 1993 game, so it doesn't fit into the "new millennium" section. I explained my rationale for my edit above to no response. Treetus (talk) 23:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

hence why i said the games actually set on the planet and not just "near it most of the time" started well into the new millenium

so while i'd argue that '93 and 2 aren't viable candidates to be put there specifically, 3 and beyond absolutely could be included... with a good enough source, that is cogsan • (give me attention) • (see my deeds) 10:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

still, do keep in mind that doom and doom 2 released in late 1993 and somewhat less late 1994 respectively, so they shouldn't be in a section about things that happened after 1999 at all cogsan • (give me attention) • (see my deeds) 11:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the premise of including only works whose significance is shown in sources that deal with the topic of Martian fiction as a whole, and Doom does not seem to be an example. Mars may be important for Doom, but Doom is hardly of notice for Mars. In fact, I'm not even sure if Mars is all that relevant for Doom anyway: IIRC from my old gaming days the whole Mars thing was just an excuse plot for the actual goal of the game, shooting weird creatures in the brand new 3D-Shooter style. Remember that Mars is a desolate place with a famous reddish soil, and even the sky itself looks red. Check this scene from the game, File:Doom ingame 1.png, and tell me if that place looks anything like what I described. Cambalachero (talk) 19:16, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The 1993 Doom game takes place on Phobos and Deimos, the two moons of Mars. That screenshot shows the first episode of the 1993 Doom game, which takes place on Phobos, and an entire page of the manual is dedicated to describing how the nameless Marine ends up on Mars and Phobos. If you want a technically superior depiction of Mars to justify Doom's placement, the 2016 Doom game has plenty of beautiful red sands and skies. Unawoken (talk) 20:24, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

We would need independent secondary sourcing to add it. There are multiple explanations of what this means above. If there's something you don't understand about "independent secondary sourcing", please say so. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the Doom franchise is now mentioned in the "In the new millennium" section as an example of a broader point made by a decent source—I added the sentence Monster movies set on Mars have appeared throughout this time period including the 2001 film Ghosts of Mars, the 2005 film Doom based on the video game franchise of the same name, and the 2013 film The Last Days on Mars., cited to a source (the "Mars" chapter of Historical Dictionary of Science Fiction Cinema) brought up at WP:ANI by BD2412. TompaDompa (talk) 16:30, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

False titles and recent reverts

I saw the recent reverts. I don't know if this article is in British or US English; if the former, I would suggest getting rid of the "false titles". They don't bother me, but then I've spent decades in the US; I think they grate on British ears. If it's in American English I see no reason to change them -- as far as I know they are normal usage in the US. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

The article is not written in either of those varieties of English, nor was it intended to be. TompaDompa (talk) 01:22, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe the most telling thing is that this feature article went through the feature article process (which would have flagged incorrect usage). Randy Kryn (talk) 01:47, 29 October 2023 (UTC)