Talk:Science fiction/Archive 4

message: Hi, I have removed the Scope and Purpose section to the Talk Page, as it now seems redundant, given the current lead paragraph, and also lacks significant references for the opinions given.  I can see a lot of criticism of this section here on the talk page, but nobody seems to be defending it very much.  Any thoughts? Leeborkman 04:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed "Scope and Purpose" section to Talk Page 

message: Come on, Hayford! You are going to have to provide support for the "for commercial purposes" bit.  Are you trying to say that the only rewason to superimpose an SF setting on a non-SF story is "for commercial reasons"?  Could a writer not simply choose an SF setting because they think it works better?  because they like the SF setting?  Are you sure you want to make that claim in the SF lead paragraph? Leeborkman 06:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, what I had in mind was Dr. Johnson's dicta: "No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money."  From there: If you take a cowboy story, set it on an alien planet, change the cows to digglewaggers and the rustlers to horned purple beings, then you can (could) sell the story to Thrilling Wonder Tales for $50.  Hence "commercial purposes".  I think most fans of SF overlook, in their enthusiasm for the genre, that once writers have sold their first story or two, then they never again write except for the money.  I could be wrong, of course, but I sure ain't gonna argue about it. Hayford Peirce 16:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Arthur Schopenhauer said on his Parerga und Paralipomena that Right of the Author (akin to copyright) is the sole worse thing in the history of literature and philosophy. People should write because they have something to say not because they will earn a reveneu for doing that. He acknowledged that people had to earn its living, but he said that writing for the purpose of earning a living only creates meaningless works. I think he predated in a few centuries the concept of selling out'. :-) Loudenvier 17:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I ain't denying that writers do stuff for money, but is that especially true of SF, and is it especially true of using an SF setting, and even if it is, is that one of the defining features of SF, and even if it is, can you provide reputable citations, and even if you can, is this point notable? ;-) Hayford, mate... keep this stuff for your award-winning collection of critical essays that blows the lid of the whole sordid SF business.  Oh, and how did I forget... isn't it true that the majority of SF actually written is probably fan-fic, ie not intended for commercial purposes at all?  I think this business has made you cynical, Hayford ;-) Leeborkman 17:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if Schopenhauer had an independent income?  If so, it sure makes it easier to write his kind of blather.  As for the majority of SF being fan-fic, sure it is, because it's being written to be sold to fans.  But even *that* is written in a commercial way, learned by trial and error by each author in order to get sold in the first place.  Don't believe me?  Ask all the millions of would-be writers who *haven't* been published.  And the minor writers, like me, who have difficulty being published.  And even being a "big name" isn't enough.  The last couple of books by Jack Vance were just *barely* published.... Whether what you write is good or bad, it still has to meet commercial standards, set by editors and publishers, in order to get published in the first place. Hayford Peirce 17:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi Loudenvier.  And anyway, does it matter that SF writers write for money?  What about Dickens?  What about Mozart?  What about Shakespeare?  "...but there are also many works of Renaissance Art in which an exotically religious setting is superimposed, for commercial purposes, upon what would otherwise be a non-religious ceiling."  See ya! Leeborkman 17:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Schopenhauer certainly didn't write for money. He was a teacher. I think commercialism will inevitably degrade the quality of human work in general. It takes someone like Grigori Perelman to show that the monetary aspects of creativity is misleading. Schopenhauer recognized the need for making a living, he only critizes the act of writing with profits in mind. How many SF writers changed their characters to make them more commercial-like? You said a work must meet certain commercial standards, and I say the problem is that it must meet a commercial instead of a qualitative standard to be published. See what Metallica had done... How they morphed for commercial purposes into something completely in denial of their roots... By the way, my comment was just a humorous one... But I did agree to some extent with Schopenhauer... It's just like Wikipedia and free/open initiatives.. All of them regards Copyright as something inherently evil. Also, critizing Schopenhauer by reading my words is pointless, read the original because I can't provide better arguments than he himself provided. Dickens wrote for money, and was sometimes critized for that. Mozart was not driven by the money he received, just read about him... He completed his greatest work in poverty and in poverty he died. But, in the end, it has nothing to do with the SF article... I think the removal of "for commercial purposes" to be a correct one, it would read as POV if let in. Regards. Loudenvier 19:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commercial purposes? 

message: The first section -- prominent authors speaking on SF -- seems strange, uninformative, and bald to come so early in the article without a better context being given.  Either incorporate these quotes into useful prose about the definitions and guidelines of SF or move them to the end of the article.  As it stands, a History of SF section would be a MUCH better opening.Amber388 14:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure 

message: Please discuss link inclusion/exclusion here. Revert warriors will be blocked if they violate the spirit of WP:3RR. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 16:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: While I appreciate the Wikipedia's concerns about spam, the recent conflict over the SFF Portals section I believe comes from misconception and misunderstanding, and I find it hard to understand how major SFF literary portals can be construed as "spam".
SFF is fundamentally a literary tradition, and literary tradition sites were focused on. That I was threatened with an IP block over the matter suggests to me a poor opinion and knowledge of the topic being discussed - Science Fiction - and where the roots of science fiction continue from the literary tradition continue on the net.
Frankly, I find it hard not to consider this abuse of editorial position - this is a public article, but only 1 editor's opinion of a matter may be published? I think that undermine's the entire principle of the Wikipedia.
As for the issue of contention - I'll list the links used below and discuss them, and if there any any objections to *any* of them then I'll be happy to remove them.
Motivation: The SF genre is primarily a literary genre, with major literary portals online keeping the genre alive, both as a general resource on modern SF, and also as a study aid to SF as a genre full-stop.
Links:
*ASFA - Association of Science Fiction & Fantasy artists
Reason: SF art has gone hand-in-hand with the literary tradition from the earlist days. The ASFA is a pretty major presence for SF art online and know of few similar-sized resources.
*Asimovs - Website for Asimov's science fiction magazine
Reason: Asimov's is a key SF magazine, both in modern and historical terms. Was previously listed.
*Chronicles Network - Established SFF forums
Reason: According to Big Boards this is the largest online community that discusses SF in it's literary tradition, though also covers alternative media such as film and TV.
*Gutenberg Australia SF Project - Many freely downloadable science-fiction books with an extensive bibliography of public domain science fiction.
Reason: This link was previously included, and appeared quite relevant, so was left.
*Locus Mag - Key publication dealing with science fiction
Reason: Locus Mag is an industry magazine dealing with SF publishing. It deals with news, reviews, and interviews perhaps more than most.
*SciFi.com - Official website for the American Sci Fi Channel.
Reason: Probably the best known mass-market SF site online.
*SFFnet - portal for science fiction & fantasy
Reason: Long established SF website, dealing especially with reviews and news. Another key general SF portal.
*SFF World - Established portal with reviews, blogs, and forums.
Reason: Another established portal, with online forums, reviews, and news.
*SF Hub - Science fiction archive project at Liverpool University
Reason: Key resource for academic research on science fiction as a genre and literary tradition.
*SF Site - SF book reviews portal
Reason: Another significant SF portal dealing with news and reviews. Perhaps sffnet and locusmag represent this area sufficiently?
*SFWA - Science Fiction Writers of America.
Reason: Major support arm for SF writers
*Worldcon - Website for the biggest international science fiction convention.
Reason: The major convention for SF as a literary tradition. Note that Dragoncon may be larger, but deals more specifically with SFF as film media. Probably should include Dragoncon, actually.
Overall, I find the claims that these are "spam links" ingenious at best, and ignorant at worst. Without proper explanation as to how these links are so-called "spam" I find no justification in them being awarded that title and being removed.
I also find the behviour of those editors who sought to remove them as quite misguided. 
Moving the SFF portals sites above the references should help to reduce the amount of spam, but I'm quite happy to look after the list on that account.
In the meantime, will repost the SFF Portals section and reference this talk entry.
Edit conflict as posted while new version being posted, so re-submitted.
ADDED: Well, the SFF Portals section has gone up, but it's messy and I think there are key omissions. Seems the SF mags that are the foundation of the genre are now delegated as "spam"? Also, list set up with improper descriptions. I figure I get banned if I edit again, so will keep discussing the issue here, even though changes appear to be being made while ignoring it.
*Whoever wrote all of the above should sign his Wiki ID, but I do agree with everything he said -- I don't see how any of these portals can legitimately called spam: it's not as if Charlie Brown kept putting in a link to Locus that urged you to buy a subscription.  And the SWFA, of which I'm a member, is hardly spam by any conceivable stretch of the term.  So, whoever, is editing out these portals, would you please leave them alone.  If you think one (or more) of the portals is spam, please state your reasons.  You may well be correct.  In which case we'll get rid of it.  If not, leave them alone.... Hayford Peirce 18:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: External links have no place in an article unless they have relevance to an article, even then you dont need 10 sci-fi portals, please state how each of the above links have relevance except to promote a site Wikipedia is not a spam database thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: You have to rationlise why they have relvance to an article, why the link needs to be there.. Just being "the best" or, "great news" does not cut it. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I think a useful way forward might be to try to avoid, at this stage the word "spam" the question of "promoting" or whether links are "good". Instead, I encourage everyone interested in this debate to read Wikipedia:External links and be prepared to quote chapter and verse from this guideline to justify the inclusion or exclusion of particular links. Notinasnaid 14:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Reverted the spamming again - Wikipedia is not a link farm. MatthewFenton (talk •contribs) 18:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that the SFWA doesn't really belong here as an external link. It adds little to the subject of the article. However, as an important trade body it deserves an article just like Teamsters, which would of course link to its page. I don't think it is major enough to become a top level "see also, specifically because the page already links to Worldcon. It is always prefererable in Wikipedia to send people to another article, if it exists and is worthwhile, rather than to an external link. Notinasnaid 08:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: You need to provide reasons as to why we would insert hordes of spam into an article; Wikipedia is NOT a link farm. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 04:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SFF Portals 

message: Hi Hayford,  Do you really think that SF and Science Fiction are not symonyms?  I know that the term "science fiction" has been wildly inapproriate for many years now (as so much science fiction has nothing to do with science), so "SF" has been used as an ambiguous label that could also mean "speculative fiction".  But is this really the way the term "SF" is used?  I am sure that I use "SF" to mean exactly "Science Fiction".  We have certainly said in our intro par that Science Fiction is often known as "sci-fi or SF", which implies to me that we can then use the terms interchangeably.  Or should we change the intro to say often (mistakenly) known as "SF"?  Just wondering.  I don't know how other people might understand the term "SF", so I'm interested.  Thanks heaps. Leeborkman 22:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh, who made the change?  Let us know what your thinking is.  I think that the choice between SF, S.F., sf, and s.f. is basically stylistic. Do we use FBI or F.B.I.?  USA or U.S.A.?  I don't mind which of these we use, although I would prefer consistency across the whole of Wikipedia, but I would usually use SF just because I am lazy ;-)  Thanks. Leeborkman 01:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the change crept in at some point.  Do with it what thou wilt.  And I suppose that "SF" is the shortest and simplest way to deal with the question.  I too wish that all of Wiki were consistent, but it ain't, sigh, and never will be.  Speaking of which, someone, also put in English 's instead of "s for some of the quotes.  Will you change them back, or will I try to train my cat to do it? Hayford Peirce 02:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, I'm a good British citizen myself (well, their Queen is my Queen), and I certainly use double-quotes for quoting!  I'll see what I can do.  I'm meant to be working ;-)  Anyway, I'm just looking at the article history, and I see there has been a battle raging on a couple of fronts in the last few hours. I'll have to dig deeper to see what's been going on.  Back to "Science Fiction" and "SF"...  I am interested to hear if anyone actually makes a distinction between these any more, and if that distinction is still valuable.  I use them as synonyms, although the second is less formal.  In parctice, this means that I use "Science fiction" at the start of a paragraph, and then use SF in subsequent cases, rather than repeating "science fiction" again and again.  In a similar fashion, in an article on the Iraq War, I might talk about "President George W. Bush" at first, and then proceed to use the simpler "Bush" or "the President" as the text continues.  See ya. Leeborkman 02:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I made the change. SF and science fiction are not synonyms according to the article which says "The use of SF is not unambiguous, however....". I wouldn't normally worry, but since the article is being picky about what is, and is not, science fiction, the use of an abbreviation that could mean something else (in the same context) is slipshod. Notinasnaid 08:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The term sci-fi has an established association with science fiction  of the more or less space opera kind. Kdammers 09:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Has SF not established its self as literiture though? Either way we dont need to turn the article into abriv. hell when the title is science fiction. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Now now, I don't want to hear you guys talking that way about the man who gave us "Spung!" Leeborkman 05:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: "but these are part of the definition discussion that has been going on for nearly 70 years." Exactly. This is not an article in Locus or a taught presentation. This is writing about the heart of this debate, and therefore requires more precision than other contexts where it can indeed be taken for granted. Otherwise when you arrive later on, having used SF throughout, you suddenly encounter the view that SF doesn't mean what we have been using it to mean. In just the same way, 99% of the time people can talk about "salt" but once we start talking in the context of "salts", it is necessary to use "sodium chloride" instead. Context is everything, and precision is surely an aim of Wikipedia. Separate issue: I think a debate on "science fiction" vs. "science-fiction" would be useful: I realise I have contributed to this unnecessary mix-up. Notinasnaid 08:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi RL, I like the idea of steering away from a direct definition.  My first thoughts when I looked into this page some weeks back was to start with the bald statement that "science fiction" defies easy definition, with the two annoying-but-true quotes "sf is what sf writers write" and "sf is what we point to when we say sf" as illustration.  Then make some very broad attempt at a definition anyway (like the one we have right now), but using the preliminary warning as a kind of disclaimer.  Then, as you say, a rough "map" of the field to give the reader an idea of the kind of works we are talking about (I think that that is what the current quotes from SF writers is largely aiming to show). btw, it's good to talk with a couple of real practitioners like you and Hayford.  Thanks. Leeborkman 06:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone could dig up good references for those two quotes, then I would like to get them into the opening paragraph ASAP.  Anyone? Leeborkman 06:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Science Fiction" and "SF" not synonymous? 

message: That's the way the New York Times handles it and that's good enough for me. Hayford Peirce 15:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Compound modifiers -- science-fiction writers write science fiction

message: There is a certain overlap if "someone" cares to develop the idea in either article - the "science" that was found not to be the case: examples would be "habitable Venus", extrapolations from present technology/failure to predict potential developments (the Internet and science fiction) and timescales that proved not to be the case. Jackiespeel 17:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Science fiction and [[Failed history]]

message: As someone seems to have noticed above, writers in languages other than English are not referenced very often in this article; SF is different in France, Poland, and Japan from in America (actually, it's different between the UK and the US, which doesn't especially seem to have been noted, either).
For one thing, Japanese SF blurs the line between fantasy and SF, sometimes beyond recognition. This may be because, though not particularly religious, the majority of the Japanese are certainly not reductionist materialists, like Heinlein was.  Polish SF, and Eastern European SF in general, is usually more philosophical, while that from France is, like a great many other French works, very ideologically and philosophically charged.
Shouldn't it also be noted that many, if not most, SF fans regard the whole "Scifi/SF" thing as obsolete? Most modern fans, regardless of the subgenre they prefer, use the two interchangeably, or use whichever they happen to prefer; it can be a serious breach of fandom etiquette to criticize the use of the alternate term.  SF may have a slight advantage on the Net because...it's shorter.  Forty percent as many letters can be a serious consideration for a person who posts on 62 fan forums a day.
71.223.34.127 18:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lacking a polyglot readership--or editorial pool--it's hard to see how one might avoid an Anglophone bias. It would be interesting to have an article on the differences in science fiction across cultures, but I don't see that happening here. On the perennially-hot topic of sci-fi, 71.223.34.127's "modern fans" seems to translate as "fans under 30 whose experience of science fiction is biased in favor of television, movies, and comics." This is a demographic/subcultural divide, not an ancient/modern one--personally, I feel quite modern despite my dodgy knees, trifocals, and personal recollection of reading ASF when it was still Astounding. RLetson 19:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this really a problem?  I mean, does it particularly matter which writers we reference in the article?  As long as we don't say that the true Science Fiction is that which is practised in the American style, then what is the problem?  We could certainly note any substantiated international differences (if indeed there is any substantiation).  I would actually guess that there is actually no significant difference, and that the perceived diifference is due to the fact that we see so much more American SF, while the only non-English SF we see is the most notable (and therefore not necessarily representative of the non-English mainstream).  In other words, we just don't ever see the bulk of mainstream non-English SF, which is very likely just like the bulk of mainstream American SF.  That's just my starting hypothesis ;-)  Anyways, if we are going to explicitly list notable examples of SF, then it should certainly include Lem, Strugatski, Perry Rhodan, Verne - is that so difficult to accomplish?  Leeborkman 23:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Naw, it would be easy, as you say, to merely reference other writers, also various series -- as I recall, there used to be several French publishing houses that ground out SF books regularly, just the way they had monthly publishing schedules of espionage, "gentleman justicier (Saint-like)", adventure, etc. etc.  Pure pulp, long after it disappeared in America.  I thought the guy was asking for more literary type analysis.  On the other hand, why bother?  Does the Mystery article (or Detective Story, or whatnot) mention that mystery stories are written and published in many different languages.  I don't think so -- it's exclusively about English-language stuff.  (Without, however, taking into account India, which surely has its own publishing industry.)  Just because it isn't done in the Mystery article, of course, doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done in the SF article, but I still question its worth.  Beyond saying something like: "Lem and Verne have contributed greatly, while Perry Rhodan has a wide readership in Germany, and organized SF fandom exists in many countries." Hayford Peirce 23:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have to disagree with HP.  German SF, for example, is far more than PR.  It has a history of sorts going back  over a century (including at least one significant author) even if we exclude the marvelous ETA Hoffmann.  But more than that, the '90s in Germany produced a number of significant, popular SF works.  (Whether the news of these books got to Anglophone ears, I don't know.  But Wik is not designed to cater to ignorance.)  Or take Russia/the Soviet Union.  From We to the Strugastky brothers, there are a number of acknowledged greats.  Just because pulp SF came of age and flourished in the U.S. and scientific romances  of leading quality came from Britain,doesn't mean the article should ignore the rest of SF. (What of it goes into the "History of SF" article and what in SF proper is a different kind of issue that I'm not addressing here.) Kdammers 01:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think anyone is saying that we should actively ignore non-English SF.  If there is something notable and substantiated to say, then say it.  The really interesting question we are skirting around is "Is there something signficantly different about non-English SF that warrants special mention?"  I theorise that there is not, and that our perceptions of non-English SF are inevitably misleading, given that we actually see a highly selective fraction of it.  Thanks. Leeborkman 02:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  English-language bias 

message: The paragraph "Technology not yet invented" mentions "Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea" wrt. submarines. But those were invented earlier, as the article on that book states.
:At the time 20,000 Leagues was published, submarines were little more than tin cans.  Nemo's sub was a major technological advance.  Even today, how many subs have a pipe organ? Rick Norwood 13:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After reading History_of_submarines I must say I find calling Verne's Nautilus "new" quite a stretch. Your other point is good though, and I find myself longing for a bright future with organ-powered submarines.--Niels E 17:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technology not yet invented 

message: Can we consider the "True History" of the Greek satirist Lucian to be a forerunner, precursor, proto-form of the Science Fiction genre? Can he get the credit for being the very first SF writer?
    * Summary: http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/LucianSamosata.htm
    * http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~loxias/vera_historia01.htm
:See history of science fiction. Notinasnaid 08:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The first science fiction - 180 AD!? 

message: I've started List of definitions of science fiction, which may interest some here.  Mike Christie (talk) 23:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like this approach--it takes the pressure off this article to produce a perfect definition. In fact, it demonstrates that there is no single, short, universally-accepted definition, and leaves this article with the more manageable task of mapping the field of narratives (or even of written narratives) that is called "science fiction." If we can point to articles on "definitions," "history," "subgenres," "movies," "television programs," and so on, we don't have to try to cram detailed accounts of all that into this small space. RLetson 06:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definitions 

message: I've just made a new science fiction template , modelled from the .  Hope it's useful.  - Malkinann 22:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Science fiction template

message: The organization of this article seems strange and unfocused. There seems to be a lot of contention. Seems like this would benefit from a Wikiproject, i.e. a focused group to seek consensus, draft page, maintain a consistent tone, etc. The wikiproject would take responsibility for articles tagged with the sf template or related templates.
If I were writing this from scratch, I'd come up with a table of contents like
# What is science fiction?
## Definitions
## Related genres and subgenres
# History of science fiction
# Ideas in science fiction
## Tropes (should all lead to their own articles)
## Jargon (again, needs references, shouldn't be hard to find)
# Great works of science fiction (books)
## Major science fiction authors (not more than fifty, should be multiple-Hugo winners, should pretty much all have linked articles)
# Science fiction in media
## Films
## Television
## Anime, etc.
# Fandom
## Conventions
## Fanzines
# See also
# References
# External links
I'm not clear why "Notes" and "References" are separated into two sections, especially for an article not really written by academic standards (i.e. where each referenced work only refers to a small number of notes).
IMO the goal of creating a "good" article is worthwhile. This will require rewrites, which are better discussed before being posted into the article, hence the call for a wikiproject, IMO.Avt tor 18:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is an excellent idea.  I have a few comments on the proposed TofC, but will hold them for now so that discussion here may focus on getting the Project going.Owlcroft 10:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikiproject? and table of contents

message: Just letting the editors of this article know that there is a discussion on Talk:Alternate future about the encyclopedicness of that article that I think editors of science fiction might be interested in participating in. —Lowellian (reply) 20:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternate future

message: The section on science fiction and fantasy is very long, subjective, and the commentary is unsourced (except for a couple of minor details). Avt tor 14:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Science fiction and fantasy essay

message: The material by an anon editor which Lee reverted out actually looks good to me, if it could be sourced. I'll put it here, in case it comes in handy, and thank whoever did it for their work - just find some kindof source for the assertions made : "A common characteristic of science fiction is that it is set in the future, or that it refers to fictional worlds more technologically advanced than present-day earth. One exception to this rule is the alternate history story, which is often classed as science fiction although it may be set in the present (or even the past) on a supposed parallel time-track. There are also works set in our own world of the present-day that may be considered science fiction, although in such cases there can be a blurring with other branches of speculative fiction, such as horror (e.g. The X-Files) or the techno-thriller (e.g. Jurassic Park)." Metamagician3000 03:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted material

message: The above lead to a Third Doctor Who article - when the term appears "fairly regularly" in science fiction, being a piece of non-science/nonsense.
Can "someone" do an article on the topic with a link to the DW article rather than a mere redirect. Jackiespeel 15:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reversing the polarity/reverse the polarity