Talk:History of science fiction/rewrite

message: Hi. Thanks for giving me the heads-up on your rewrite. I'm just beginning to read through the page but I've got to give an initial comment before I read further. 
First thing is:  Inclusionist  is a self-referential Wikipedian term, a neologism which doesn't have broad usage beyond Wikipedia itself. The only other usage I know of is with reference to theology, and even that usage is rare. 
There's a convention in Wikipedia against allowing the encyclopedia to make self-references. Likewise there is a convention against proliferation of neologisms. I agree strongly with both of these conventions.
Next thing which leaps out at me is the suggestion that anyone would seriously date science fiction back to Gilgamesh! Yeah sure  fantasy  dates back that far and beyond,  fiction dates back that far and beyond, but  science  fiction? No. I've never heard of anyone claiming Gilgamesh was anything to do with science. 
Sorry but the intro is all wrong.
*Okay, I'll remove inclusionist and exclusionist, though they accurately describe the difference in opinion which definitely exists. I would like to find terms to describe the difference, though, so the concept can be carried through the article. If you have acceptable terms for the difference, please let me know. Ferret-aaron 23:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll jump just in here; I seem to remember a part of the bible where one could see a bit of SF. It's in one of the prophets books, and it speaks of wheels within wheels, has a description of a machine te. al. The author is transported out of the atmosphere (although he feels as in a dream). I'll have to look this up. Lectonar 07:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Initial comments 

message: The sentences:  "As Campbell's reign as editor of Astounding progressed, Campbell gave more attention to ideas like Hubbard's, writing editorials in support of Dianetics. Readers started turning to other magazines to find science fiction stories." are a bit odd. Around 1949 Street and Smith stopped publishing most of their pulps but  Astounding continued because it still had dependable loyal readership. It continued on despite any references to dianetics etc. The loyal readership continued to be loyal and other sci-fi magazines flourished alongside of  Astounding/Analog,  not at its expense.  --wayland 19:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am willing to amend the wording of this phrasing slightly, but not significantly. It is indeed true that Astounding maintained a loyal fanbase. At the same time, the indications I've seen are that its subscription base declined- one of the reasons, if not the main reason, why Campbell changed the name to Analog. Galaxy, TMFSF, and the others certainly seem to have drawn significant attention away from Astounding. If we want to change the message of this statement, I'll only concede on this point if we develop the issue much further and source all assertions. Ferret-aaron 06:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looked this up in Clute's Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and his account mostly agrees with mine- Astounding continued and had a loyal fanbase, but not near as strong, as most of the best new writers went elsewhere. Ferret-aaron 00:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Astounding magazine 

message: I have created a SF Scope Rewrite where we can work on it. It contains my first draft, and ESR's version is available in the history. I would appreciate comments. In fact, I need help. KennyLucius 01:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  SF Scope rewrite 

message: Finally substituted this in as the official article. I still welcome any improvements, and put a To Do List of still unresolved problems on the Talk Page. Ferret-aaron 14:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Substition 

message: Congratulations on a good article to everyone involved, especially Ferret-aaron. If I recall correctly, Ferret-aaron did a major re-wrote on a separate page and offered up a clearly better one. The new article replaced the old one about six weeks later without any bickering. Nice job. 
I was moved to congratulate you because I admire the way this rewrite proceeded, especially in light of recent events at the SF article. I feel that the rewriting process deserved its own recognition, and this is all I could come up with. KennyLucius 15:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Kenny. I have to confess I'm not very clear on the Good Article criteria or the process, and since I know all the holes this article still has, I'm not really sure why it was given Good Article status. Ferret-aaron 20:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Article