Talk:Astronomical engineering

Astro/nomical engineering merge?

I noticed AstroengineeringAstroengineering ('AE') after I noticed Astronomical engineering ('ANE'). AE is/was a fairly large page, especially when compared to ANE, but AE was recently redirected to ANE. I would hope that there is a merge in the works (personally I do prefer 'astronomical' to just 'astro', but don't want to see content disappear).   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Staszek Lem, just saw Talk:Astroengineering#NukedTalk:Astroengineering#Nuked (which probably should have been moved to Talk:Astronomical engineering instead of creating Talk:Astronomical engineering for no other reason than to tag it). Anyway, there's no reason why AE's sci-fi/hypothetical projects (there aren't any actual astronomical engineering examples, after all...) can't go under their own section(s).   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

These project are listed here and have their own articles, one mouse click away, so I see no reason for them to have their own sections. But if someone wants to add them (following WP:Summary style and without original speculations), let them go ahead but without "overengineering". Staszek Lem (talk) 17:53, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Now, expecting further question about "In popular culture" section: Nearly all space opera operates on astronomical scale, routinely destroying and sometimes constructing planets. Therefore, per WP:TRIVIA, we may only add works of art which satisfy the criteria of non-trivial impact on the plot, such as the whole setting is within a ringworld or something, an important part of the plot is about some astroeng project, etc., and of course is some reliable source mentions some work as an example of astroeng. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:53, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree, WP:RS, etc., permitting. I don't have the desire to do nor check this, which is why I'm making it known here, but I was hoping that the #R'ing editor would at least be willing do part of that work, instead of just 'destroying' a 'competing', 6-year-older article.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  18:12, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I am planning to work on it. As for competing, it is laughable offense. Originally I planned to merge into the 'competing' article, but stopped stort after noticing it is a piece of garbage and that the only references cited which are directly on the subject are using the term "Astronomical engineering". And I agree this choice is preferable, because the abbreviated term may refer to a narrower concept of engineering of stars. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Staszek Lem, for your convenience, here is the permalink to the last version of Astroengineering, 26 January 2018, before nuking.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:21, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Than you for a gentle reminder :-) There is so many things to do here in wp... Staszek Lem (talk) 17:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC)