Talk:Science fiction/Archive 5

message: SF fandom has frequently served as an incubator for special-interest groups which originally coalesced within it and then split off to form organizations or entire subcultures of their own. Examples include the Society for Creative Anachronism, the L-5 Society, LARP gaming, Furry fandom, and anime.[citation needed] SF fandom also has close historical links and a large population overlap with the hacker culture,[citation needed] and has been a significant vector in the spread of both neopaganism and libertarianism.[citation needed] 
This entire section is pointless and unprovable, and could cause a war because of its blantent opinion. If anyone does not provide evidence of this, then I shall delete it from the main acticle because, as previous editors have noted, the page is crowded enough. Thank you for your time
--WngLdr34 03:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section is hardly unprovable; the history of most of the branched fandoms clearly goes back to science fiction fandom and conventions. However, detail is perhaps more appropriate to the article on Science fiction fandom. The deleted paragraph was somewhat redundant. I added mentions in an earlier paragraph, to be concise. Avt tor 18:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: What do you mean "since when have neo-Paginism been spread by Sci-Fi?" <sic> Have you ever been to a convention? Do you know any neo-pagans who don't have a connection science fiction fandom, at least peripherally? Fandom is where these groups get organized in the first place, and it remains a primary communication and recruiting channel for all of these other groups. Avt tor 22:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anecdotally, and to some extent from experience, I agree with this. But it's disputed and needs a source. I don't think it can be included without some kind of reliable source being found. Metamagician3000 09:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I do know such neo-pagans, as a matter of fact - but then I am in Sweden where sf fandom is rather marginal (and there are only one or two conventions every year). I agree that fandom has been a "significant vector in the spread of neopaganism", though. (Most poly people I know, in Sweden as well as in the UK are also sf fans, for that matter.) But... that's got nothing to do with science fiction, it's a fandom thing. --Bonadea 16:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As the history of science fiction shows, fandom itself is relevant to science fiction, which is why the fandom page is summarized as a section here. Ideas that come from science fiction spread through fandom and back to other science fiction authors. The four-paragraph section in the science fiction fandom article on offshoots and subcultures got summarized down to a single sentence in the main science fiction article. The neo-pagan reference, while relevant, wasn't quite relevant enough once the main article was summarized. Avt tor 19:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Note to all Editors of this article

message: Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the Main Article link under See Also, whose anchor text is the title of this area, having remained dead-end through two broad hints on this Talk page, I undertook to do something about it, and the link now reaches a real page.
I am not proud of the page, which is a hasty cobble-up, but it does seem to me as or more complete than the existing Topics page, which in any event is just that, Topics, and not Genres/Themes/Topics.  In my cobble-up, I linked to the existing individual pages on Genres, Themes, and Topics, but--as that last seemed awfully incomplete--also provided a new list of "Topics" articles and Categories.  Some most Helpful Soul jumped in before I had even finished (possibly losing me some text in an edit conflict) to point out that there is that existing Topics page (of which I was aware, as I linked to it there), something that has nothing whatever to do with a page for the link here to point at.
Anyway, for better or worse, there is now something at that link.  If anyone views it with horror or disdain, please, by all means, feel free to do whatever you like with, to, for, or about it: I put my time in, now I'm outta there. Owlcroft 10:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Genres, subcategories, and topics related to science fiction

message: It appeared, to me at least, that that area had become seriously over-crowded.  It is not, and I daresay should not be at this level of abstraction, a complete or near-complete list of science-fiction-related pages on Wikipedia, of which the full number is huge.  My criterion for placement was which articles and categories seemed most likely to be of immediate value or interest to someone just beginning an acquaintance with science fiction, which sort of person seems to me the far and away the most probable visitor to this main page.  I am not married to either any of the insertions or any of the deletions, and do not intend to further intervene in any subsequent changes here.  I only suggest that changes be made with the idea of keeping the links in that section to a low number, each at a fairly high level of abstraction with respect to the overall topic science fiction.  An article on self-powered vehicles would scarcely have a direct link to an essay on the Chevrolet Nova. Owlcroft 07:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: See Also

message: I think the intro sentence in the revision is an improvement, but it's rather convoluted. I also think it should mention the fact that most sf takes place in the future. Here's the current revision first sentence:
:Science fiction is a broad genre of fiction in which the setting, characters, plot, and/or themes involve speculation based on discussions or theories found in the science.
And here's my suggestion:
:Science fiction is a broad genre of fiction which often takes place in the future and usually involves speculations based on current science.
From a legalistic point of view, the word "current" is completely unnecessary, but I think it helps the flow of the sentence. KarlBunker 11:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking only for myself, I am broadly amenable to any reasonable definition of science fiction which refers to "fiction" and "science", and I approve of clarity. Avt tor 12:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: First sentence in revision

message: This article lists Jack Kerouac as a speculative fiction writer. I've read quite a bit of Kerouac and never have I seen anything that remotely resembles speculative fiction. Burroughs I'll go with you on, but Kerouac seems absurd. Eric Rosenfield 02:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section History of Science Fiction is simply a summary of the article History of science fiction. I suggest your question go to that talk page; any changes that emerge that affect this page should then cause appropriate edit here. (That's a "shrug, heck if I know.") Avt tor 04:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The History of Science fiction page's only reference to Kerouac is "With the help of Jack Kerouac Burroughs published The Naked Lunch," which is factual and does not make the claim that Kerouac himself was a Science Fiction writer. That being the case I think I'll rework the sentence on this page unless there are any objections. Eric Rosenfield 19:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kerouac?? 

message: I came here looking for information on the US TV Channel Sci-Fi, and actually had to follow two links from here to find it. Perhaps the redirect notice on the top should mention it, or at least the Sci Fi Channel disambiguation page? At the very least, I updated the link in the television section to point to the right place instead of being recursive.--GauntletWizard 14:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. Okay. Avt tor 15:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect/TV 

message: Let me just comment quickly that I'm glad so many people are expressing opinions and making changes (even when I don't agree). One of the problems this article had before was that it was so weirdly organized, with some sections overemphasized and some sections ignored, that it was hard for people to make sense of it, so a lot of people just ignored it. It's good that people are making an effort to improve this article. 
I invite interested editors to join WikiProject Science Fiction to help improve the quality sof SF-related articles within Wikipedia. Avt tor 16:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Glad you're all here

message: This list is HORRIBLE.  I definitely think we need a (short) list of SF authors in the main SF article, but the current list seems to be somebody's idea of a joke:  Asimov, Wells, Shelley, Dick, Gibson and other crucial authors are missing, but we have Martin and Gaiman.  We are deceived by the footnotes:  the lists referred to look nothing like the one we see here. Kdammers 00:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You saw a version in the process of being edited. Avt tor 01:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: some of the most influential authors in the field of science fiction.

message: Per previous discussion here, I've shortened this article down to 37K. I've reached a limit; it's not obvious to me what can be cut that won't interfere with comprehensive relevance or comprehensibility. If anybody else wants to trim wording further, or suggest sections to be reduced or removed, or sections to be restored or expanded, feel free. I'm going to start working on sources. Avt tor 02:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Summarization

message: Where is steampunk from this article ??? Frigo 13:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems to be about right. It is in Science fiction genre, linked in various places include "more genres" in the infobox at right and under the "Related genres and subgenres" heading. This article should be no more than an overview. Notinasnaid 14:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steampunk 

message: Something that occurred to me a few weeks ago (and it isn't something I feel strongly about -- I was just bored at the time) is that a significant number of people who know nothing about science fiction use the term "sci-fi" as a virtual synonym of "worthless, childish trash". I made an anonymous edit which added, inter alia, the following:
:However, there are also many purported works of science fiction in which a superficially "sci-fi" setting is superimposed upon an otherwise conventional tale, and it is this "lowbrow" form of the genre that is most widely recognized outside science fiction fandom. As such, there is often a perception that science fiction is escapist or juvenile. For numerous examples of this, see the regular feature " As Others See Us" in David Langford's monthly fanzine Ansible.
A few days later, Avt tor made a major revision of the article, and while this effort is greatly appreciated, I think the Langford reference got a bit garbled in the process such that it now reads:
:David Langford's monthly column "As Others See Us" depicts "sci-fi" works that notably fail to meet the standards expected of SF. <ref> (same reference)
I don't think this is quite right. While Ansible does sometimes make fun of bad SF, the "As Others See Us" column is really about people outside the genre making sweeping judgments on the basis of very little understanding. As I said right at the beginning, I think this is of borderline importance for mentioning in an encyclopedia, particularly the new streamlined version of the article. Therefore I would be in favour of just deleting the Langford reference rather than trying to make it more accurate, but I'll let someone else decide. Andrew 84.65.8.43 20:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO, the point being made seemed useful. I perhaps did not perfectly understand it, and my version would certainly have been an attempt to make the phrasing more accessible. The comment should be short and succinct. The "streamlined" version of the article was not intended to remove important information from view, simply to serve as a pointer to subordinate pages where more detail could be found. Certainly seems to me there is an opportunity for an article about science fiction in society, for which this comment would be right on topic. Avt tor 23:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the feedback -- that's an interesting idea about a "Science fiction in society" article. In the meantime, I've modified the wording slightly in the main article -- I think it's OK now. Andrew 84.71.154.217 12:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Langford reference 

message: Various glitches. 
*Para. 2: The founding Galaxy editor who challenged Campbell's hegemony was H. L. Gold; Fred Pohl edited the magazine through the 1960s (and continued the challenge); The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction under Anthony Boucher and J. Francis McComas also should be mentioned in this connection for this period. 
:*Feel free to clarify (succinctly).Avt tor 07:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Without specifically defending the existing text, the underlying thought in the draft I wrote was that for the purpose of historical and cultural analysis, centuries and especially decades are not precise boundaries. If alternate wording will enhance understanding in a succinct way, feel free to suggest/amend. Avt tor 07:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *Am obliged to argue this point. Joss Whedon, Peter Jackson, and J. K. Rowling opened up a lot of doors for all the speculative genres. Publishers and studios wanted more product, including both fantasy and SF. The text here does not say the genres are interchangeable, merely that they share channels and audiences, which is true. Sci-Fi programs fantasy because it's of interest to their audience. Fantasy is certainly "speculative"; it is based around questions like "What if the world worked like this? What if magic were real?" etc. This is just a non-scientific version of speculation, but still widely recognized as being closely related. Avt tor 07:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I hope others will comment.Avt tor 07:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Imprecision in History section

message: This article is a mess, packed with weasel words and is not written from a NPOV - unless it is fixed the maintenance tags should *not* be removed, also note that I've added the NPOV dispute tag due to the fact I dispute it is NPOV. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Karl are you under the false impression a vote is held before tagging poor articles? If this is the case you are mistaken, you've also removed a dispute tag *twice* - this does not resolve the disputed section, if anything aggravates it. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Talk:Science fiction#Tags as of 1/22/07 Avt tor 16:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A mess