Talk:Noosphere

Deleted a fact as needing "more reliable source"

As per recent Schazjmd's edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Noosphere&oldid=1305053533, removing a tag as requiring "independent reliable source"; are you seriously kidding me? This is no proofing thing, this is a simple FACT. The NPC in the game explicitly states "noosphere" and what they (in the game) tried to do and what happened as it backfired. It's all there. It pretty much corresponds to how this concept of noosphere is described in this article. There ain't no two noospheres to be confused about, so the only explanation is game developers were at least inspired by this very concept. My edits simply put this two facts together and linked them, so ppl interested in it could check it from both sides (game article, and noosphere article).

There are a few sources describing the game endings and mechanisms around (like S.T.A.L.K.E.R. fandom wiki) for ppl who did not play the game, did not reach the right ending or did not understand it. But I see NO reason WHATSOEVER to link to 3rd party sites which just describe what is in the source (game), on the other hand, wikipedia ain't here to transcript computer games. For that reason I've put just a few sentences in the game article about the noosphere, and linked to this article. As it is a fact that the noosphere is explicitely mentioned in the game (actually the base root of the game - The Zone - is created as a result of tempering with noospehere), it is only correct to simply pun a mention of it in this article, referencing as "popular culture" (computer games are now very well established part of popular culture, same as TV/cinema production, literature, comics and other types of art).

If you don't believe, go and buy it, play it and see for yourself. Won't change a simple, obviously, ready to be seen fact (which, as such, does need no proofing). THE GAME VERY ITSELF is the source, everyboy could go through it and see with own eyes, what else you want? With such stupid extremism, are you going to demand "independent source" of sunrise and sunset from now on (as everybody's own eyes are obviously not good enough source), without which yo going to remove large parts of corresponding article(s)?? Behemot (talk) 11:45, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

@Behemot, please see MOS:POPCULT, which explains: Cultural references about the article's subject should not be included merely because they exist. Cultural aspects of the subject should be included only if they are supported by reliable secondary or tertiary sources that discuss the subject's cultural impact in some depth. The mere appearance of the subject in a film, song, video game, television show, or the like is insufficient. Schazjmd (talk) 13:55, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

@Schazjmd (talk) 13:55, 24 August 2025 (UTC): Are you aware of the meaning of the word SHOULD, and how it possibly differs from MUST or HAVE TO? Knowledge of noosphere as a philosophical concept is pretty much non-existent amongst general population. This article pretty much sums it all, there is very little to it, it's bare minimum above stub. This is one of the first (if any at all) mentions in ANY popular culture I am aware of, and it made at least a few ppl go and search for what it is, if it is wholy made up by authors of the game, or there is something more behind it. So the pioneering impact is unqestionable. I see no reason why it should not be mentioned here in a SINGLE sentence. What is your goal, to provide AS LITTLE information as possible to general public? Until now I thought encyclopedia is about the opposite. I cannot believe what has become of this project.

Behemot (talk) 08:24, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Reference listing cleanup

It looks like the "References" section is more like bibliography, while the "Notes" section has the reference list in it; and some of the references and notes share the same list.

Some re-sorting of templates might be needed on this article. KatieKillings (talk) 19:34, 6 June 2026 (UTC)