Talk:Science fiction/Archive 1

; Archives
	October 2001 - March 2006; April 2006 - May 6 2006; May 6 2006 - Sept 18 2006; Sept 18, 2006 2006 - Dec 27, 2006; Dec 27, 2006 - Jan 22, 2007; Jan 22 - current; ; ;

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Definition

The current definition is

Science fiction is a form of fiction which deals principally with the impact of actual or imagined science and/or technology upon society or individuals.

However, the definition is too broad: I don't think that a story about the impact of an iPod on my life would be considered as science fiction. Any suggestions? -- Card 19:54, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There is a sense of the future in science fiction. Alternative histories are not in my opinion science fiction, though they fit the broader category of speculative fiction and are often shelved with science fiction in books stores. If the technology in question is actual, then the impacts would need to be future in order to be science fiction, otherwise it becomes an alternative history. Perhaps it would be best to change "impact" to "future impact". -- Hu.

I do agree that science fiction stories are usually set in the future, and usually concern themselves with an imagined future of mankind. However this isn't necessarily the case - the Star Wars stories are famously set in the distant past, for example, and Philip Dick's Man In The High Castle is set in present-day San Francisco, albeit an alternative universe version thereof. Maybe I should be writing this in the article, not here :D .. jamesgibbon 29 June 2005 01:08 (UTC)

Norman Spinrad in "Modern Science Fiction" (Anchor Books, 1974) defines Science Fiction on a marketing basis (Science Fiction is what is sold under a Science Fiction package), which is quite historically accurate. Should'nt this provoking point of view from a famous genre writer be remembered in the core definition?

I have no objection to mentioning the Spinrad definition in the article. However, I'm not sure that it gets to the core. For example, fan fiction may have nothing to do with marketing and selling, but it can still be science fiction. --Memenen 4 July 2005 04:51 (UTC)

I have a problem with the sentence "In common with most fiction, science fiction is written mainly to entertain." and I think it would be better written as "Much modern science fiction is written mainly for entertainment, but as with other forms of fiction, science fiction often seeks to make a point or alter readers' opinions. The hypothetical aspect of science fiction has been used by authors to create cautionary literature, social propaganda, predictions, and even philosophical analysis." what do you guys think? [User: silknscarlet] 12-2-05

I think the point can be added, but more briefly. How about, "In common with most fiction, science fiction is written primarily to entertain, but many authors have a deeper purpose, to give insight into science, society, or the human condition, or even to create a work of literature." Rick Norwood 21:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Part of the problem of definition is that there are formal definitions of science fiction (such as Darko Suvin's) and sociological/historical definitions of science fiction (of which Spinrad's is a simple example; Gary Westfahl might have a more complex definition of this kind somewhere in his scholarly work). Unfortunately, the relationship between the two is quite complex and controversial. A really detailed article would delve into this aspect of the problem, but I'm not sure we can sort it out here. Metamagician3000 12:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Isn't all literature written to entertain? Your supposed to enjoy reading literature, it's not supposed to be akin to taking foul-tasting medicine just because it's "good for you".--RLent 20:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Not everyone considers learning foul. Rick Norwood 22:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Fix needed--I'm pretty sure that the quotation attributed to Eric Rabkin in the Purpose section is, like the book it is supposed to come from, actually by J.O. Bailey. I haven't been able to track it down yet (no page citation, though it has a prefatory ring to it), but Bailey does use the term "scientific fiction." RLetson 06:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

In any case, the Rabkin quote doesn't add anything to the article, and should be removed. Rick Norwood 14:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Military sf

Would you agree that an alternative name to the Military science fiction is military space opera? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:25, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Gosh no. Lots of Mil SF has nothing to do with space travel. Some is alt-history (I.E. 1632 by Flint or Sterling's Nantucket series.) Even Drakes Hammers Slammers has no "space opera" It's all ground tank war with sf elements. Then, there's things like Flint and Drake's Belesarius series...... so, no, I would not agree with that. Rick Boatright 22:26, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Other

Hmmm. . . It strikes me that Mary Shelley's Frankenstein includes science fiction elements and should be included in the history section. Just a thought.

Reid 05:49, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree with that, but think we should include some slightly earlier SF - in the form of the Daedalus and Icarus myth. If that is not a template for Science Fiction, then little is.

No-one 21:06, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

With respect to Star Wars... Although I'm not going to argue for its place in the Science Fiction hall of fame, the reasons given for excluding it seem sort of arbitrary. If we start booting out every work that isn't scientifically plausible, seems to me we have to start with every work that violates General Relativity. "Sci-fi" gets a whole lot smaller when you do that. Perhaps it would be better to point out the difference between "hard" sci-fi and things like Star Wars... Or just to ditch the sentences? -D

I'd say Star Wars is smack in the venerable Space Opera tradition. I mean, do we kick out Burrough's John Carter on Barsoom and the Lens stories as well?

I've always considered Star Wars to be Sci-Fantasy, so to me it should remain here as well as being mentioned on the Fantasy page...

Brian Aldiss argues convincingly in The Trillion Year Spree that modern science fiction started with Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.
WCFrancis 14:45, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hard SF

From Science fiction/Hard science fiction:

"Hard science fiction is largely a literary genre, as the complexities of physics rarely translate well to the screen."

Interesting point!! Can anybody think of any exceptions offhand?? Personally, I'd question whether 2001 is an example -- details of astrophysics and technology certainly aren't discussed much therein. I think 2001 might be more of a "New Wave" movie than anything else.

Good points, but there was considerable attention to scientific detail and accuracy that hasn't been present in virtually any other sci-fi film. For instance, note the time delay on the videophone conversations, the silence of space, the depiction of zero-g and the carousel, and so on. Also, it's very abstractly philosophical rather than too concerned with the relationships between people - another trait of hard sci-fi. I'd give it the benefit of the doubt. Certainly it's closer than anything else I can think of. It's certainly not space opera. --Robert Merkel

Probably not. :-) But the techically accurate details are background rather than crucial to the plot -- the plot would procceed identically without the time-lag, silent space, centrifugal "gravity", etc. Most of the plot developments hinge on Clarke's Third Law more than anything else, I'd say.

(I mean, the film that plays Also Sprach Zarathrustra on the sound track when somebody re-solders a diode is really hard science fiction. :-)

The only Hard SF movie I've ever seen, also my favorite movie, is GATTACA. It deals mainly with genetic modification and some space flight. Highly recommended, and very popular movie.

I changed the Hal Clement reference to Arthur C. Clarke. No offence to Clement, but Clarke is far better known and thus makes a better example IMHO. --Robert Merkel

OK, somebody's put the Hal Clement reference back in. Could somebody explain to me why him, and not, say, Stephen Baxter, or David Brin? What makes him the canonical example of hard sci-fi? Not trying to diss the guy, but if you're writing an article about a topic and you're trying to pick an example, why somebody who's comparatively a lot less well-known? --Robert Merkel

Put in all the examples you want!! As long as they are good examples. :-) (I'd prefer an accurate but obscure example over a well-known but dodgy one.) Clement is, as far as I know, the canonical example of hard SF, i.e. the details of physical sciences really do drive the plots, and characterization, etc., are secondary. I wouldn't say Brin is nearly as "hard". I'm not familiar with Baxter.

Put in all the examples you want!!

This is a debate that's come up in other places (discussions of musical genres, for instance). Many people take your position, that the more (accurate) examples of participants (or works) in a genre, the better. That's quite reasonable, if you add a list of ("genre foo" practitioners). I would argue that, for the sake of clarity and flow in prose, that restricting examples to the most well-known or influential practitioners can be a good thing.

As far as the specific examples go, if people think Hal Clement deserves a mention as a particularly apt example here, well and good. Could somebody who knows about him please add an entry? I'm curious now :) --Robert Merkel

I'm not sure I like the generalization that "Character development is commonly secondary to explorations of astronomical or physics phenomena" since it seems slightly derogatory, and since there are lots of examples of Hard SF in which character development is not secondary (I'm thinking Larry Niven and John Varley). That said, if we accept the "derogatory" definition, Clement is particularly apt in that his prose is wooden and his characters two-dimensional, IMNSHO!

However, Clement certainly is an important part of the tradition. As it says on his page, he was named an SFWA Grand Master. I say he deserves to stay.

By the way, I would extend the definition beyond physics and astronomy to include biology at least (thinking about John Varley again).

And should there be a link to the Cyber Punk tradition? In my opinion, a modern subset of Hard SF.

-- Cayzle

Please come to Talk, it's cozy over here

I would really like to get more in depth explanations about the derivation of the various coinages than have been offered in the edit summaries. So why not hash this out here in talk, before this whole thing descends into an edit war, huh? -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 00:31, Sep 19, 2003 (UTC)

As a science fiction loon I am aware that Gernsback coined the expression. In his later musings he repeatedly lamented about coming up with the term. I highly doubt that he would be so apologetic if he wasn't responsible. What I do agree with, is the dubious date. I have seen many dates quoted, notable: 1916, 1925, and 1927. So I don't doubt that the date I gave in the prior revision was incorrect. User:Imran mentions the OED, but he doesn't tell us what it does say about the term. -- sugarfish 06:42, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The reason I removed it was that the word was used by authors other than Gernsback before 1925, however doing background research it turns out the earliest known usage is by Gernsback but in a 1916 issue Electrical Experimenter "I am supposed to report Münchhaussen's doings; am supposed to be writing fiction, scientifiction, to be correct.". However that fact that Gernsback gets the date of the coinage wrong by a fair amount, raises question as to whether the he actually coined the term (he may have just been told by someone before that he coined the term and assumed it to be true). As for sci-fi, that term has been in use since at least Robert Heinlein's "Grumbles from the Grave" (1949).

It isn't common practice to accept claims of coinages any more, unless there is substantial independent evidence to accompany it. Even in those cases mistakes have been made (for instance it was thought for a long time Karel Capek had coined the word "robot" until someone noticed the term was used by his brother Josef Capek in his short story "Opilec" three years earlier). --Imran 11:09, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC) that is incorrect. The word used in Josef's Opilec is "automat" in the original Czech version. The word was INVENTED by Josef and USED by Karel in RUR for the first time in history. For further reading see http://capek.misto.cz/english/robot.html

Thank you, that was most illuminating. Would you have objections to a mention that the popularisation of the term "scientifiction" is often associated with Hugo Gernsback, and that it was the earliest term for science fiction that enjoyed wider circulation and had a cohesive referent?

I'd be happy with that. --Imran 21:18, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

As an interesting aside for the origins of the term science fiction, this citation may be helpful, http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/12/messages/1042.html. The earliest usage dates back to 1851 from a writer named William Wilson, and closely parallels Gernback's definition.

On "Sci-fi" I have to admit I feel matters are much murkier. Can you suggest a formulation which would allow us to say something about its origins? Respectfully -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 11:35, Sep 19, 2003 (UTC)

We could put something along the lines of "the origin is unknown, the earlist known mention being in a letter Heinlein wrote to his editor in 1949, but the word has been recoined by later writers including xxx....."

Incidently if you just want to find the earliest known usage of a sci-fi term have a look at http://www.jessesword.com/SF/sf_citations.shtml --Imran 21:18, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I put scientifiction up there with Gernsback. On Sci-fi though, your thoughts make me hesitate. Maybe that particular subject is a bit too murky for an overview page of the genre. Perhaps the whole subject matter of terms for Science fiction should have its own article. Hmm. I'll have to check if there already is one... -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 10:17, Sep 20, 2003 (UTC)

On Forerunners of Science Fiction, I think some thought might be given to noting utopian fiction, especially that specifically set in the future. Most blatant example is Louis-Sebastien Mercier's Memoirs of the Year 2500 (1770 or so, in English in 1772) which does not have itself much technical change but does open other doors than imaginary voyages do.

Also, there seems an implication that science fiction got to the Soviet Union after Star Trek came on TV. Nikolai A. Rynin's 9-volume or something INTERPLANETARY FLIGHT AND COMMUNICATION (Leningrad 1928, in English from the Israeli Program for Scientific Translation: Jerusalem, 1971) is full of details of sf available to him in the 1920s. -- Mark Owings

This quote seems like a fringe view of artificial intelligence. "The 'individual' might be an artificial intelligence, and the story may partly be concerned with the Turing test." The Turing Test is really a non-issue in science fiction involving robots. Even the robots of classic Asimov would all easily pass. The point of all of the science fiction about robots that I've read is to show robots talking casually and doing so much more. Do you agree? --Invicktus

FWIW, my thinking on the Related Topics list order: 1) Group like items 2) Try to have most broadly relevant topics at the top, least at the bottom

Science fiction themes--all media, all topics, all people
- science fiction by nationality or gender--all media, all topics
- science fiction by media--all topics, all people
  - authors
  - film
  - TV
  - visual artists
- science fiction specific topics--all media, all people
- fandom--in some ways broad, but since it's more about the consumers of scifi...
- science fiction external reference material
- Cross-over subjects

Section on Astounding magazine

Unless I hear otherwise, I think this needs radical changes somehow.

Section: Astounding Magazine

With the emergence in 1937 of a demanding editor, John W. Campbell, Jr., of Astounding Science Fiction (founded in 1930), and with the publication of stories and novels by such writers as Isaac Asimov, Arthur C. Clarke, and Robert A. Heinlein, science fiction began to gain status as serious fiction. Ventures into the genre by writers who were not devoted exclusively to science fiction also added respectability; early such writers included Karel Capek, Aldous Huxley, and C. S. Lewis, and later writers included Ray Bradbury and Kurt Vonnegut Jr. Magazine covers of bug-eyed monsters and scantily-clad women, however, preserved the image of a sensational genre appealing only to adolescents. There was naturally a public desire for sensation, a desire of people to be taken out of their dull lives to the worlds of space travel and adventure.

This appears to suggest that Capek, Huxley and Lewis wrote for Astounding. I'm pretty sure they did not. I have not checked my indexes, but I doubt Bradbury or Vonnegut appeared, or if they did they were extremely minor. Also, Campbell specifically avoided covers like those described (though they continued to be very popular on titles like Planet Stories).

I'm not really clear that Campbell's editorial policies led to science fiction began to gain status as serious fiction. They were much respected by readers, but did they reach outside the genre? My impression is that science fiction gained little respectability until the 1960s e.g. with Amis' New Maps Of Hell, which gave more respect to Galaxy.

The subject of the section is the gradually increasing respectability of science fiction, not just ASF, but I agree that that resepctability came gradually. As recently as 1980, I was told by a librarian that Canticle for Leibowitz couldn't be science fiction because it was good. (I brought her a copy of the magazine version of the first part.)

I don't think the intent was that Capek et al wrote for ASF, but rather that ASF, and they, increased the respectability of sf -- but that is, as you note, doubtful, and a rewrite of that paragraph would be welcome. Rick Norwood 13:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Lifters

I have removed the comment under "Hard Science Fiction" concerning the Lifter device. Lifters fail to fulfill the primary requirements of anti-gravity machines, so (regardless of UFO buffs' enthusiasm) they don't provide the technology hard SF postulates. First of all, they are essentially magnetohydrodynamic propulsion, so they are useless outside a planet's atmosphere. Second, they work through electromagnetic principles well established in present-day physics, and do not rely upon manipulating gravity in a way that Einstein's General Relativity does not describe. On both counts, they cannot be the "gravitic propulsion" of Foundation's Edge or the "impeller drive" of Honor Harrington's navy.

This section seems lacking in a couple other respects, too. Notable examples of hard SF can retain their value long after science has moved on, if they were well-constructed following the science which was known at the time. For example, people still read and enjoy The Gods Themselves, even though Asimov's description of the strong nuclear force does not contain gluons or quarks, and his notions of cosmology predate the concept of the inflationary universe. Just because his scientists use a Pionizer instead of a Gluonizer doesn't mean his book is obsolete.

Anville 16:42, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hard and soft SF

I remain deeply unsatisfied with the sections on hard and soft SF, as they currently stand.

Comments like Damn, this was poorly written belong in the cozy environs of Talk pages, not in the main article, where they are both unprofessional and POV.
Stating that hard SF necessarily has poorer plot and character development than the soft-serve flavor is again POV. If somebody said this, they deserve to be quoted with proper attribution. Writers of hard SF—and their fen—who have made rebuttals also deserve representation.
Who, exactly, has complained that a "speculative essay" category doesn't exist? Such things have been written; Jorge Luis Borges wrote several good ones. ("The Library of Babel" was an essay before it was a story.) Among Asimov's F&SF essays, too, it's not hard to find ones which extrapolate known science in the same way that his fiction does, though often for "educational" purposes.
Mangling Isaac Asimov's name is worse than a crime; it is a blunder. He's dead, so someone else has to complain about it. That person may as well be me.
While the hard/soft categorization is imperfect (as are all genre breakdowns), it's a starting point that has been widely acknowledged among the writing and critical communities. Wikipedia is not the place to propose a new pet classification of science fiction, regardless of its merits. Any particular book's classification can be endlessly debated (that's a perk of fandom), but it's no good to dump book after book into the junk drawer called "other categories".

May the Schwartz be with you. Anville 15:03, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comedy science fiction

What about the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy and that general genre? There are no references to that anywhere in here. Its a popular enough series to warrent at least mention i think.

Yes, what was around in comedy sci-fi before that (if anything)? I'm under the impression that Douglas Adams either started that genre or brought it into the mainstream. WhiteC 20:43, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There has been humour in science fiction almost as long as there has been science fiction. Think of Mark Twain's A Connecticut Yankee At The Court Of King Arthur or Samuel Butler's Erewhon. Notable 20th Century writers of funny SF include Harry Harrison, John Sladek, Robert Sheckley, Keith Laumer, R. A. Lafferty and many others. Other writers like Frederik Pohl or Thomas M. Disch are frequently ironic. Notinasnaid 21:44, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Patrick Stewart says that Transmetropolitan makes him "laugh like a drain". Anville 20:55, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Comedy is nothing new to Sci-Fi, it's been with it since the begining. Granted it's a bit more prominant now but it has always been a kind of glue that keeps non Sci-Fi fans watching until they're hooked =).

Perhaps comedic science fiction deserves its own entry. --RLent 21:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I always thought of Douglas Adams as a less-funny (though certainly clever in his won right) imitator of Robert Sheckley. That kind of writing goes way, way back but Sheckley is the supreme master. Seriously, I've always wondered how much Adams was familiar with Sheckley and how much he sort of re-invented this kind of thing. I know that everyone who ever worked with him thought he was a genius. Metamagician3000 12:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

What happened to the "Types" section?

I dropped by during my Wikiholiday to see what's been going on (a vacation from a vacation, as it were) and discovered that the "Types of SF" section had vanished entirely. It slipped into the aether about two weeks ago, without any comment I see on this Talk page, and without modifications to the articles hard science fiction and soft science fiction. What's up?

Not that the missing section was the greatest prose in the world, but it worked pretty well. At the very least, we should have a stub of what had been there, with the details that had grown here farmed out to the main articles on each sub-genre. A copy-and-paste job, yes?

Somebody should re-read Asimov's "Feeling of Power" and roll that into the paragraph on "mathematical science fiction". Or else I'll retrieve all the examples I can think of, do some Original Research, write a stuffy and turgid academic paper on the topic, get it printed in Science Fiction Studies or Trendy Academic Poser Weekly, and come back here and cite myself.

Anville 15:28, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Added photo

I added a picture of Isaac Asimov already on Wikipedia because I felt that it needed some sort of picture to make it look better. If anyone thinks that Asimov is the wrong person to use for such a picture, change it, and let me know if you don't mind so I can try to find a better picture. --PlantPerson 21:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I decided to change the picture myself in the end. I thought this stack of books (and a magazine) suited the article better. --PlantPerson 22:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Author/Title of short story with nano and Singularity?

About 20 years ago I read the greatest short story about humanity achieving Singularity through nanotechnology. The touching part was humanity's need for an emotional anchor as they explored the universe with their minds. The heroine of the story was a simple woman who had an elemental connection with her own humanity, and through her mind being a part of the collective, provided the emotional safe harbor and anchor needed for the whole race to achieve Singularity.
The story was in Analog. Naturally I went to their site to search their archive. No luck! I couldn't find a searchable archive.
Any ideas on the author/title or how to find it?
Thanks, Rose_Lacy 21:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

See if any local libraries have back issues of Analog. Ask someone over at the Analog website. Or hope somebody on the net has heard of it. Sorry, I haven't read it myself. Those are the only things I can think of. WhiteC 03:18, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. A reader on the Analog discussion forum thinks the story is The Gentle Seduction by Marc Stiegler. I've ordered a copy of his anthology containing the story to confirm. Rose Lacy 18:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Got the book and it is indeed the story I was looking for. I've expanded the page for Marc Stiegler and added The Gentle Seduction to Technological Singularity culture section. Rose Lacy 23:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Sounds interesting. Now I'll have to try & find a copy :-) WhiteC 03:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Future prediction

User:Notinasnaid requested that this edit of mine be discussed.

Original: A popular idea of science fiction is that it is, in general, attempting to predict the future.
Mine: A common thread among science fiction stories, in general, is the author's attempt to predict the future.

My intent was not to change the meaning. I was trying to make the sentence easier to read by reducing weasel words. -- TomCerul 05:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I should explain why I consider this a complete change of meaning.

To paraphrase "A popular idea of science fiction is that it is, in general, attempting to predict the future." -- "Many people think that science fiction is generally trying to predict (but this sentence only reports that people think that, it doesn't agree or disagree)". The paragraph continues to make it clear that authors are not in general doing that. I don't consider this a use of weasel words, in the Wikipedia sense; it is not trying to disguise point of view by presenting it as popular opinion, it is presenting an popular opinion in order to disagree with it.

To paraphrase "A common thread among science fiction stories, in general, is the author's attempt to predict the future." -- "Authors are trying to predict the future".

In fact, you've inverted the meaning! So, since the meaning is inverted, it is open to discussion: which is it? Are authors trying to predict the future (new meaning)? Or is this a mistaken view of what authors are trying to do (old meaning)? And, whichever meaning is the right one to convey, what is the best way to convey it? Notinasnaid 10:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Before I go, a source for my writing: Nicholls, "The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction", 1981. "Prediction The most widespread false belief about sf among the general public is that it is a literature of prediction. Very few sf writers have ever claimed this..." Notinasnaid 10:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

A popular idea of science fiction is that it is, in general, attempting to predict the future. 3 Disclaimers and "is that it is" is hard to read. Perhaps something like:"A popular misconception about SF is that authors are trying to predict the future."? (Yeah, I know that "attempting" is integral to the intended meaning, but it has guilt by association. :) TomCerul 12:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Sputnik

I'd like some help here. On the German Wik/SF page, it is maintained that sputnik's launching gave a big push to SF (implicitly meaning in the US, though the article is coy here). This doesn't seem right to me. Can any-one give any evidence for or against this assertion? Uers:Kdammers 211.225.32.196 05:38, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Shortly after Sputnik, a large number of US science fiction magazines were launched, but most folded after only a dozen or so issues. This probably rates a mention in the article. I'll add it. Rick Norwood 23:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Writers and Sci-Fi

"(although many a science fiction writer has been known to wince at its usage)."

How does this add to the page without some kind of explaination as to why? Why do writers "wince at it's usage"? Is that only the case in the U.K. where SF is aparently more popular or is this common to many writers regardless of nation?

Sci Fi is opposed by the more traditional writers and fans in both the US and UK, in part because of Forry Ackerman's reputation for neologisms, in part because the referent, Hi Fi, was already obsolete. On the other hand, SF means San Francisco to most people, and the Sci Fi channel seems to have fixed the abbreviation in the public mind, so we might as well accept it. Rick Norwood 23:06, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Aldiss's Trillion Dollar Spree on the issue: "Throughout the book... we allow only the abbreviation "SF". That down-market appellation "sci-fi", sometimes heard on the lips of the would-be trendy in the media and elsewhere, is purposely avoided. We bow to the fact that much of what passes for science fiction nowadays is nearer fantasy. SF can, after all, be imagined to stand for science fantasy, as it can for speculative fiction (for those who are attached to that term)."

Ellison is one of the leading proponents of the term "speculative fiction", in his anthology Dangerous Visions. Personally, I switch back and forth between all the terms interchangeably, and have no problem at all with scifi, though I once heard Dan Simmons hold forth on the problem that the word 'fiction' isn't pronounced with a long i, which really bothered him. Simmons went on to coin a number of neologisms on the model of scifi, including "spy-fi" for spy fiction, "mi-fi" for military fiction, and my own contribution, "mysti-fi" for mystery fiction. Ferret-aaron 03:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Organization of External Links

I am removing the link to chabad.org because it is definitely not an SF portal. It claims to be a page discussing Chassidic Sci-Fi, though I would question that claim as well because the Sci-Fi themes in the articles are very tenuous. This is just spam. If you can present an argument to the contrary, I'll stop deleting your advertisement.KennyLucius 02:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I have moved the chabad.org link to the External links section. --PinchasC | [[User_talk:PinchasC|<small>£€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€</small>]] 03:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

PinchasC, can you explain why you are calling this religious page Sci-Fi. I should admit that I haven't read the stories--only the descriptions. Perhaps I would call them Fantasy, but where is the Science theme? I accused you of spam, but I suppose that was inaccurate since I see no indication that you are putting ads all over Wikipedia, but I do think your link is inappropriate for this page. Will you offer an explanation, please? KennyLucius 02:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

No reply from PinchasC, so I guess it was spam after all. KennyLucius 15:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding right away, I have many things which I am involved with right now. Regarding the link that I placed, I assure you it is not spam. It is not a commercial site. If you did not see the contents, I don;t know why you have something against it. I am going to re-add it since your reason for removal is that I didn;t post here quickly enough. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree it doesn't belong. Not because of the contents: it just looks like a page with 11 science fiction stories. But there are tens of thousands of science fiction stories on the web: it needs to be a very notable page in order to belong on the main science fiction article. Why is this more notable than any other magazine or collection of stories? It might be a good choice for an article on Religion in science fiction if anyone makes one. Can we try and get a consensus here before any action? My 'vote': delete. Notinasnaid 09:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It is notable because in general you do not find science fiction and religion coming together. I would agree that if you found a larger site inbolving Jewish science fiction, then that would replace this page. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think religious science fiction is nearly as unusual as you think. Consider the works of James Blish for instance. And Piers Anthony often touches on religions. Notinasnaid 16:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

To clarify, I meant from a Jewish viewpoint. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 16:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Pretty much the only Jewish science fiction I've found is in Jack Dann's anthology Wandering Stars and its sequel, More Wandering Stars. Some great stuff by Silverberg, Tenn, Ellison, and others, and an introduction by Asimov. Ferret-aaron 03:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I've found a home for the link already exists in Wikipedia. I recommend moving the material to Religious ideas in science fiction. Notinasnaid 18:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I have moved the link there. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 19:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm delighted that a solution was found. Just a few nits: spam need not be commercial, and I still don't think spiritual fantasy stories are science fiction.

In reviewing the external links of this article, a number seem pretty close to spam, including at least one that was added by a user who claims to run the linked site in question. Perhaps a trimming down on the number of links is in order? Hiberniantears 18:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

rewrite to smooth the prose and improve organization

The "scope" section has obviously undergone a lot of rewrites, with the result that sometimes a sentence is in the wrong paragraph, or there is an unexplained transition. I've tried to smooth it out a bit. If there are any questions on specific issues, I'll be glad to go into more detail. Rick Norwood 20:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Problem? Possible britannica ripoff in article

The first sentence of the article, "Science fiction is a form of speculative fiction principally dealing with the impact of imagined science and technology upon society and persons as individuals" seems to be ripped from Britannica, especially the first wikipedia version which was: "Science fiction is a form of fiction which deals principally with the impact of actual or imagined science upon society or individuals"

The first sentence is a word for word ripof of Encyclopedia Britannica.

I've taken a shot at a rewrite that avoids the Britannica wording. I hope I haven't gone too far. Comments are appreciated. Rick Norwood 17:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect Statement about Copyright (pretty sure)

"Although these may be technically illegal under copyright law, they often are permitted when no profit is made from them, and there is clear understanding that the copyright remains property of the characters' original creators." I believe this is incorrect. Can someone verify what I remember from researching copyright? Copyright protects works of art and not ideas. Therefore, the universes and characters created by an author may be used by others without permission, as they are not protected by copyright. They may, however, be protected by trademark.

I believe it's not as clear cut as that in actual lawsuits. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 10:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Tell you what. You write a story in a universe created by Harlan Ellison, and then you can ask that question of your lawyer when he sues. Rick Norwood 13:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Big rewrite of the scope section

(I've mislaid my Wikipedia ID and account, but this is Eric Steven Raymond writing, 3 Dec 2005.)

The Scope section, as I found it, completely failed to take account of the advances in critical thinking about SF since the mid-1990s, or to reflect the genre analyses in sources like the Clute and Nichols Encyclopedia of SF. We have much sharper definitional tools than we did twenty years ago, and it was well past time for this entry to use them.

I certainly understand the temptation to rewrite entire wikiarticles very rapidly. I did it myself when I first began to wiki. I have now come around to the belief that it is best to rewrite a little, pause for comments and reflection, and then rewrite a little more. Rick Norwood 14:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I like the rewrite, but I have to question "The most characteristic structural device in SF is the use of indirect exposition". While that's frequently a characteristic of good SF (IMHO), there's plenty of SF stories with infodumping being used since Heinlein right up today (e.g. David Weber frequently seems to be King of the Infodumpers). Not saying that statement is necessarily wrong, but it seems an odd choice to define that writing style as the "most characteristic" thing about SF. --Bob Mellish 18:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

ESR again. It's certainly true that infodumping still occurs in SF; I doubt it will ever be entirely banished. But SF readers tend to react to expository lumps as failures or defects. There's an implicit norm that indirect exposition is the "right" way to do it.

--deleted and rearranged entries--

ESR, I have read your rewrite carefully, and I think it will be a marked improvement over the current Scope section. I have some really big problems with NPOV, some of the statistics sans citations, and some of your opinions that have leaked into the article. All said, my objections are finite and easily remedied, and I hope you'll help. If you've gone away because I called the article "ridiculous" (I apologize for that), then I'll edit it myself after finals next week.

I think the rewrite can go live after very little work.

Here's one objection: I'm a big fan of the term "speculative fiction" because it is so useful. It was never intended as a replacement for SF--what would be the point? Even if it has no aisle in the library, it is a useful term. KennyLucius 16:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

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. KennyLucius 01:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite of SF History Article

I've been working on a massive rewrite of the History of science fiction article for the past couple weeks on a userpage, User:Ferret-aaron/sftest. I would appreciate comparing notes with you on the subject of SF history, especially if you're planning to work on the history section of the main article. Note that my rewrite is nowhere near done; I haven't written anything on contemporary SF, I just copied the (terrible) text from the existing article on the '20s and '30s, and most of the rest still has obvious gaping holes. But it's getting there. Ferret-aaron 07:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Ferret-aaron, yes, let's collaborate on this. I've now finished fixing the articles on speculative fiction, fantasy, and horror fiction to reflect the new scope-of-SF material. It would be good to tackle history next.Esr 08:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, Ferret-aaron, I've read your test page. It's already a really big improvement, and I have no serious disagreement. with your organization or historical framework. I would emphasize the transformative effects of the Campbellian revolution more, and I would include Rudyard Kipling as a formative figure, but these are upward-compatible changes.

I'd like to add significant material on the Campbellian revolution in the late 1930s and the rise of the neo-Campbellians (Brin, Bear, Benford, etc.) in the early 1980s. How do I do this? Can you give me permissions to modify that page?

ESR, AFAIK, there's nothing stopping you from editing the page now, though I'd appreciate if you wouldn't make too large changes while it's on my userpage, just for my sanity's sake. I'm trying to take a poorly written, POV, unsourced article and shape it into something reasonable, and that becomes more difficult if the article is being massively changed by others. And I'd really rather you didn't make changes unless you're logged in. I already do mention Kipling alongside Doyle as British writers of romantic fiction who wrote works of with science fictional content. The only Kipling scifi I've seen mentioned is "In the Night Mail" or whatever that story's called, so I don't think it's necessary to go into too much depth about him. I'm curious about your term "neo-Campbellian", as I've never seen it applied. I do know that in reading Brin, Cherryh, Vinge, Bear, etc... I do get the sense that there is a shared purpose, but struggled to find a name in the literature for it. The best I found was a reference to a New Space Opera in Gary Westfahl's essay on Space Opera in The Cambridge Companion to Science Fiction. Do you have a source that uses the phrase "neo-Campbellian"? Also, I'm in agreement with Kenny that your changes seem generally unsourced as well as POV, and you should work on trying to stay within the strictures of WP guidelines better. Ferret-aaron 18:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

RfC/poll – Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker: one article or two?

What do you think? E Pluribus Anthony 19:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

One article. Rick Norwood 15:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi there! Thanks; this is merely a notice: the RfC is actually occurring at the link above/here. E Pluribus Anthony 15:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

History of Science Fiction rewrite

I have been working on an overhaul of History of Science Fiction which I just placed at History of science fiction/rewrite. Please comment on my rewrite and whether it should replace the current article at History of Science Fiction's Talk page. If anyone has any suggestions about where I should put this notice to get more comments, let me know. Ferret-aaron 18:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I have replaced the article with my rewrite. The article still needs work and anyone willing to contribute is welcome.Ferret-aaron 04:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Re-Write Needed

I do not feel qualified to tackle the re-write of this entry since so many people know so much more about this field than I do. From what I have read, one can even study science fiction as an academic field at the University of Tennessee! I would nevertheless like to note what I see as the biggest problems in this entry for possible help to those who are contemplating a re-write:

1) Early history is pretty well covered, but what about the major transitions in the field from the 1930s through today?

2) The definition seems lacking in limiting the area of study.

3) The contributions of major authors in the field and developments since the 1930s gets no coverage whatsoever. A dozen major authors that come immediately to mind as having to be mentioned for their innovational contributions (in no particular order) are Heinlein, Herbert, Dick, Asimov, Card, Ellison, Farmer, Clarke, Niven, Haldeman, Crichton, and Anthony.

4) Science fiction has many subgenres, and this is only touched on at one point in a somewhat inaccurate (for today's sub-genres) manner. A listing to the links of these sub-genres (at minimum) is needed. Some sub-genres that come immediately to my mind include military science fiction (would include Star Wars and Star Trek here along with Ender's Game and perhaps even Foundation and 2001: A Space Odyssey -- Space opera I find to be an unhelpful categorization for this sub-genre. Since no one is singing, the only limiters seems to be space and perhaps melodrama, the latter of which is purely subjective), alternate history, time travel, hard sci-fi (technology emphasized), humor (contributions of Pritchett and Piers Anthony), perhaps even literary (Vonnegut and Nabokov's work, Burgess' Clockwork Orange, Margaret Atwood, etc.) where the emphasis is more on style of writing and ideas expression than the plot outcome.

5) What about how science fiction differs from country to country? Russian sci-fi is nothing like American or British sci-fi.

6) The article covers only written sci-fi. What about films?

7) The entry mentions that sci-fi is based on science, fantasy on magic. Is that all that can be said on the issue? What about works that skirt both, for example Andre Norton's Witch World. Is that portal that takes people from our world to Estcarp based on science or magic. Norton leaves the question unanswered as unimportant, yet the answer would be crucial for how to classify her entire series, it seems. Or is there some other set of criteria we might use?

8) The mention of Norton raises another tricky topic. What about sci-fi work that is considered for younger readers? Is this a sub-genre in and of itself? Who gets classified here? Many Norton fans or fans of much of early Heinlein's work would disagree with the label "juvenalia", despite that these authors at some points in time would themselves have agreed with the classification.

DanQuigley 16:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC) Dan Quigley

I think you expect too much from a single article. SF is a really big topic, and this main article should not be much more than a jumping-off point. I think it should provide a minimal definition of what SF is, where it came from, and its current breadth. Some of the depth you describe is available in other articles. Perhaps the main article could do a better job of linking to these topics.

It's too bad you don't feel qualified to tackle some of these issues. Each of the subgenres you mention has (or should have) its own article. Perhaps there should be a "international science fiction" article that describes the difference between Russian and British and American. I guess we're all waiting for the expert to show up. KennyLucius 19:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

To quote Terry Carr, "The Golden Age of Science Fiction is 12". Nobody is going to know everything, and everyone should limit themselves to contributions in those areas they really understand. I was 12 in 1954, and so I know a lot about fifties science fiction, and a fair amount about the forties and the sixties. The seventies are largely a blur -- blame the funny looking cigarettes I was smoking in the seventies. To me, the article looks good on early sf, as DanQuigley says, but we badly need people who were 12 years old in the seventies and eighties to work on those sections. Rick Norwood 15:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, people. It seems to be no page describing the evolution of russian science fiction. :( Just some thoughts.

Russian science fiction had both the influence of the translated english science fiction, of russian litherature (e.g. Gogol, see his story The Nose) and now, also the influence of traditions of russian science fiction (e.g., Strugatsky set with their works the "slat", the standart of quality sci-fi).

Just some resourses: first, Ivan_Efremov (Andromeda Nebula, of course, btw, a funny thing, his "Cor Serpentis", a novellette about first contact, is the direct reaction for (nebula? awarded) "First Contact", criticising it.. the idea is that humans and aliens -- are not opponents, but partners, even friends.), may be to mention Aleksandr_Belyaev. A word about Bulgakov. Then of course, Arkady and Boris Strugatsky (who at first, created the Noon Universe, a world where they would prefer to live in; then began their "real" works.. confrontation of abstract future vs abstract current in Snail on a Mountanside, exploration of the world of consumption in The Final Circle of Paradise (it's our most probable future).. Doomed City.. an experiment carried by some superior forces over volunteers, without distinguished purposes and unclear means used.. just an infinite wall to the east(?west), an infinite precipice to the opposite and a city between them.. the idea is showing how the main hero, a confirmed Communist of 1940s, who can't even live without the belief in communism, steadily loses his belief, his worldview.. how he comes to the absense of belief and it tortures him: how to live further). An ongoing offline-interview with Boris Strugatsky.. the award "Bronze Snail", which is awarded personally by Boris Strugatskiy.. Probably some words about Kir_Bulychev.

In approximately the 1980s-the beginning of 1990s a whole new branch of russian science fiction(&fantasy) arose.. So it's our contemporary russian science fiction. Let's look at Rusf.ru.. About these authors, we seem to have only loosy pages here: Lukianenko, ehh.. Alexander Gromov..

F*cking expert i'm.. and no time :( ellol 17:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge from sci-fi

The Sci-fi term may deserve a section, but not a separate article. -Psyche|logy 23:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that is reasonable, yes, to merge Sci-fi into Science fiction. User:Ceyockey 00:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I also agree. Rick Norwood 01:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems logical. The Terminology section already contains much of the same information. KennyLucius 16:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I just missed this discussion - which seems to have entirely taken place in the Christmas period, so will be missed by many. So I reverted [prior to discovering this discussion, as it wasn't at the end of the TOC in this talk page]. This doesn't seem to have taken place in the usual way (with a consensus being recorded). Sorry if that is now inappropriate, but I have to record that I would oppose the merge. The sci fi article had/has a more detailed discussion of the terminology than is appropriate in this more general article. Making the sci fi a link is going to strongly suggest that it is, in fact, a simple synonym rather than a term capable of causing offense or derision. Notinasnaid 20:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

After reading more, and especially since work has continued, I've put it back as it was, but still, I wouldn't have supported the move... Notinasnaid 20:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Recent revert

I'm sorry to revert, but Pierremenard's changes seem to be just fiddling with the article rather than improving it. Rick Norwood 17:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Please provide a reference.

Please provide a reference to show that RAH preceded Forry in the use of SciFi. Rick Norwood 20:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

According to Ackerman's website, "Sacred Heinlein used the term 7 years before I did, in a positive fashion in a private letter to his legendary agent." Therefore, coined by Heinlein, popularized by Ackerman.Shsilver 20:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I would hate to doubt Forry, but he does try to promote the use of "SciFi" and attributing it to Heinlein would be one way to promote it. Since the letter is private and not public, there is no knowing, but in any case seven years went by without a repetition of the use, so I still would say Ackerman coined the popular use of the term. If you want the reference to Heinlein in, it should be in the form "Ackerman says..." Another thought -- how common was the phrase HiFi seven years before Ackerman punned on that phrase with SciFi? Rick Norwood 14:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I have seen the claim elsewhere, that was just the on-line reference that came to hand. And while the letter was a private letter, many of Heinlein's letters have been published (I'm not sure if this one has or not). Hi Fi as a term dates back to 1934 when it was first used by RCA Victor in an ad campaign for Red Seal 78s. Also, from an article about the Oxford English Dictionary SF terms project[1]: "We also have Heinlein to thank for a term near and dear to most of us: “Sci Fi,” which popped up in letter he wrote in 1949." The OED SF project itself[2] also accepts Heinlein's creation, although it places it in 1949, not 1947, as Ackerman does. Sicne they are looking at actual sources, I presume they have seen Heinlein's letter. Shsilver 15:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Who on earth is the "near and dear" quote by? Rick Norwood 15:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The article was written by Christopher DeFilippis. According to the italics website, "CHRISTOPHER DeFILIPPIS is an award-winning author and journalist. His first novel, Foreknowledge, was published in 1998 by Berkley Publishing. His DeFlip Side radio segment can be heard monthly on the SF radio show, Destinies: The Voice of Science Fiction."Shsilver 15:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Sentient computers

I have created the above page - plese add more examples/background etc. Jackiespeel 19:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted the link from this article. It may belong in science fiction themes.

Terminology Move

I moved the terminology section of this article so that it now falls after the scope and media sections. I just felt the section drones on a bit with a "fan boy" style that might prevent readers from making it to the rest of the article. I did not change any of the content, so my fan boy comment is not meant derisively. Hiberniantears 14:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I added to that dreaded section tonight, but did so because I believed I could sum up the SF/sci-fi brouhaha in a couple of sentences. I did not delete any other text. MobyMimic 07:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge Science fact

The article Science fact has been a one sentance stub for over a year, with only one contributer (except for a minor tweak by another user). It should be merged into this article. --Ezeu 23:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The "article" science fact should be deleted -- there is really nothing there to merge. Except in the logo of Analog, "science fact" is not in common use, and that use is not that important. Rick Norwood 00:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Rick Norwood: there is nothing in that article that has anything to do with the Science fiction. If there were any controversy or real meaning to Science fact, the article would be more than a stub, so I see no reason to mention the term in Science fiction. KennyLucius 20:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Will someone please mark science fact for deletion. Rick Norwood 22:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

That is a fallacious argument at best "If there were any controversy or real meaning to Science fact, the article would be more than a stub". More than 30% of Wikipedia content right now consists of stubs (considering User:Dantheox/Stub percentages), so unless you're willing to blanket nominate for deletion 300,000 articles, let's drop that argument from the armory and start over. I'd personally recommend merging the content into "science fiction", then making the "science fact" article a redirect, then taking the redirect to redirects-for-deletion with the argument that it is confusing to keep it. However, it is quite unlikely that will result in deletion owing to the relatively long edit history (back to Jan 2005) associated with the article ... despite its small size .. and the fact it has already survived one trip to articles-for-deletion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Science fact has been renominated for deletion here. --Ezeu 23:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't presenting an argument, Ceyockey. I read the "article", which consists of a single sentence. The content of that sentence is not worth mentioning in the SF article--that is my opinion. No one cared about it as an "article", and I don't think readers of the SF article will appreciate its presence.

If I misunderstood the meaning of the term, please enlighten me. The stub seems to be describing something that has nothing to do with SF except that it isn't SF. I suppose if it were referring to a sub-genre of SF that deals with factual science, it might be worth mentioning--but I have never heard of it.

BTW, I don't advocate deleting every stub. I DO maintain that a term that remains a stub for a year is a term no one cares about. KennyLucius 06:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Link to Scifi podcast

I just reverted an edit to add a link to http://alphacentauri.castpost.com, appearantly a brazilian scifi podcast in Portugese. It is the second time I have removed it, and it has not (to the best of my knoweledge) been added to any other articles. My feeling is that the link does not add much to the article, since it is (a) not in English, and (b) one of a great many possible publications related to science fiction, so not needed. But I though I'd open it up here for more comments. Thoughts, anyone? --Hansnesse 01:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The article claimed it was the "first sci-fi [sic] podcast". Even if that were actually a notable event, which is open to debate, this doesn't seem to be true. The page referenced (whose URL I will omit to avoid the perhaps intended effect of search engine seeding) has an oldest date of 2006-03-02, a week ago, while [3] seems to show many older than that. Notinasnaid 10:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
The link is recognizably "linkspam" to veteran Wiki editors who delete them for breakfast. Coyoty 19:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

"The X Files" should be included in the section "Television"

I feel that The X Files should be included in the section called "Television" along with the descriptions for some of the longest-running science fiction series on television, as The X Files actually retained members of its cast for nine seasons from 1993-2002. Anyway The X Files should be in there somewhere because it is a landmark in Television SF. (Cpt|Kirk 11:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC))

I, for one, have no objection. Go for it. Rick Norwood 21:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

X-Files

I had this article printed out a while ago and now when reading it I also expected to come across the name X-Files, but no. Funny you should say the same thing just a few days before me :)

Science fiction and mainstream literature

I'd wouldn't mind seeing an example given for "modernist work of literature that overlaps with the themes of science fiction". Bryan H Bell 17:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Good suggestion. I'll provide a few. Rick Norwood 19:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

franchise = cast change

An editor has the idea that somehow the concept of a franchise and the idea of a cast change are related. This goes against the dictionary definition, and at the very least is original research. Would a third party please weigh in on this subject, to avoid a revert war. Rick Norwood 13:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, No I don't have the idea that the concept of a franchise and a cast change are related, at least not directory. Maybe you should read the statement before you edit it. I introduced the term franchise and then I introduced the definition of what a series is. A new series is what has the cast change, not franchise = cast change. The edit I made does not even make the statement that franchise = cast change. You are. Have a look at the edit again. It is defining what a franchise is and what a new series is. This is very important because it tells the reader why something like the X Files or SG-1 are considered the longest running series, while Star Trek and Doctor Who are the longest running franchises.

Ive just had a quick look at the two versions and although simonapro's version is a bit clunky and wordy (all those comma breaks) i agree that what he is attempting to convey is fundamentally correct. I see nothing wrong with saying that a franchise can become popular and develop into a new series with a new cast for it. Tyhopho 16:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Please stop it, both of you. Edit wars are not how disputes are settled, this should have moved to a discussion after the very first revert, even if you believe the article is now wrong. You cannot prove you are right by reverting more often. Please see Wikipedia:Three Revert Rule and please do not change this part of the article until a consensus has been reached. (I offer no view on the matter under discussion). Notinasnaid 16:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll offer my view: the only advantage to discussing franchise vs. series in the SF article is to give more weight to Star Trek. Why can't we just mention these various TV shows without trying to name a winner? A lengthy definition of series, franchise, and such things really belongs in a different article since they are not directly related to SF. KennyLucius 16:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually it does not give more weight to Star Trek because it is on even par with Doctor Who. However Rick Norwood editied that out so you can't see that they ran for the same number of total seasons. In the older edit you could. So the point to this edit is to define a franchise with new, or multiple, series and a plain old series, which just happen to have ran for more seasons than the franchise's new, or multiple, series. That is all it is about. I would perfer the old edit before this one with the actual season numbers and totals so that reader's could see for themselves. To be honest I don't even know why it is split between the US and UK. To me, an aired show, is an aired show.

This seems to be a competitive topic, and I have probably contributed to that. Initially, the article mentioned Who and Trek without picking a winner. Then someone added X-Files as the longest running series, ignoring the direct contradiction in the previous paragraph about Who. I tried to correct that by differentiating between U.K. and U.S. shows. Then, next thing I know, Trek and Who are in a different class altogether, leaving X-files out in the cold.

Personally, I liked the original article much better. Trek and Who deserve mention because they were groundbreaking in the 1960s. I'm not sure it matters much (in a SF article) if X-Files or SG-1 were or are long-running. Is it terribly important to an exposition of the nature of SF on TV?

If it is deemed terribly important, I propose a simple bullet list of series (not franchises) ordered by number of seasons (in parenthesis). Trek will be in there three times, so there won't be a need for discussion of franchise versus series. If the reader is interested in such things, let them go to a more appropriate article, like science fiction television which is mentioned at the beginning of the TV section.

If we're voting, I say it IS NOT terribly important to this article. Put this stuff in science fiction television. KennyLucius 17:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

This is simple stuff. The big four are Star Trek, Doctor Who, The X Files and Stargate SG-1. Star Trek and Doctor Who are the longest running franchises, but they contain new series and this is why they are the longest running. The X Files and SG-1 have the longest running seasons per series, more than Star Trek or Doctor Who. They should all be included in this article. I don't think that is what is being debated. What is being debated is the nature of a franchise and a new series. Rick Norwood seems to think they are the same thing. His revert uses the term 'media' which is far too general (CDs, DVDs, Radio transmission, comics... What does 'media' mean?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonapro (talk • contribs)

Damn, i wish you would 4 tilde sign your entries - it makes it far easier to add comments. Although I supported your idea which you were trying to implement I think your latest version is over the top and I therefore second KennyLucius when I say take it to Science fiction television. Tyhopho 21:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

As several people have now said, a discussion of the difference between a cast change and no cast change and a series and a franchise does not belong in this article, which is a general article on science fiction. My revert was for that reason and no other. I am a fan of Star Trek, but this is not the place for a fan war. I have no idea where you got the idea that I think that a franchise and a new series have anything to do with one another. A franchise is when the owner of a property grants to another person or corporation, not the owner, rights to make use of the owners's property, in this case intellectual property. This often occurs when the owner, e.g. Paramount, grants a book publisher, e.g. Bantam, the right to publish a book using characters from a television series. Paramount owns the franchise, Bantam has a licence to publish Star Trek books. But none of this belongs in this article, as several different people have said, now. Nor is the question of which tv series ran the longest, which had a cast change and which didn't, and so on, relevant to this article on science fiction. Rick Norwood 19:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The idea of a fan war is moot and is not the topic. The topic here as you specified is "franchise = cast change". The passage in dispute is this one -> "Science fiction television franchises can develop and the popularity of a show may allow it to become a new series, but continuing with a similar theme, generally with a completely new, or substantial, cast change. Examples of Science fiction television franchises with a new, or multiple, series are Doctor Who, Star Trek and Stargate SG-1." Does this mean "franchise = cast change"? I do not believe it does. What it does is define a media franchise (and links to that) and defines a series (and links to that) and explains what a 'new series' is. I agree that the section is getting big. In this case I have made an edit to "In the United Kingdom, the TV serial franchise Doctor Who first aired on BBC in 1963 and continued through 1989, becoming one of the longest-running science fiction series on television and introducing generations of U.K. viewers to the science fiction genre. The series went into hiatus in 1989 and was restarted in mid 2005 with a slightly revamped formula." "In the United States, Star Trek series on NBC ran for only three years (1966-1969), but was groundbreaking in that it introduced a wider U.S. audience to the tropes of real science fiction. Star Trek: the Next Generation ran for seven seasons, as did Star Trek: Deep Space Nine and Star Trek: Voyager." to -> "Science fiction television franchises can develop and the popularity of a show may allow it to become a new series, but continuing with a similar theme, generally with a completely new, or substantial, cast change. Examples of Science fiction television franchises with a new, or multiple, series are Doctor Who, Star Trek and Stargate SG-1. In the United Kingdom the Doctor Who franchise produced twelve series with a total of twenty eight seasons airing between 1963 and 2005, and in the United States, the Star Trek franchise produced five series with a total of twenty eight seasons airing between 1966 and 2005." It is now half the size with twice as much relative information.

This anonymous person who is probably Simonapro obviously has no interest in SF, Wikipedia etiquette, or discussion. At the risk being mooted, I'll say this: these semantic details do not belong in the SF article. Please direct your efforts to Science fiction on television. KennyLucius 06:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Kenny you might want to check the revert rule. You have reverted with no reason given other than "semantic details". Please examine why you are using your edit, twice the size of the one I made, with half the needed information and with added commentary that is not needed. It is in fact your edit that should be directed to Science fiction on television if you want to use personal opinions like "but was groundbreaking in that it introduced a wider U.S. audience to the tropes of real science fiction.". You can move "The series went into hiatus in 1989 and was restarted in mid 2005 with a slightly revamped formula" to Doctor Who. Anyway these are not needed here. I am reverting back my last BRAND NEW edit that is short and to the point without being braggy and includes all the top four and explains why they are the top four in as short an edit as possible with lots of important information - like the terms series franchise which I have been responsible for linking within Wikipedia. Your edit removed the series links and just adds 'comments' to my 'facts'. I will stick with the 'facts', something that actually works around here :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonapro (talk • contribs)

Mr. Doe: No one cares that your paragraph is shorter than the previous one. No one cares that you packed it full of irrelevent information. What we care about is that it is off topic.

I am not going to respond you your repetitive sales pitch again. Address the point: your paragraph is off topic. Perhaps some of the existing paragraph is off topic as well, but yours is worse. KennyLucius 19:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Wiki etiquette

1) Assume good faith 2) Try to reach a consensus 3) Sign your posts with four tildes (the wiggly line to the left of the "1/!" key). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick Norwood (talk • contribs)

And you are? :) Maybe we just need to let some folks here who have not made over five hundred edits to this article actually write something useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonapro (talk • contribs)

My Reason for Quitting Helping Science Fiction Wiki

Well this has been a crap experience on the SF topic for me. I am just glad that I managed to make the effort to point out (1)The X Files, (2)franchises, (3)series, (4)new series and (5)cast changes, and the need to show some examples of season lengths and what a new series is, while defining it all in less than six lines with included Wiki links. There seems to be some people here who want to kick up a fuss over this and want to revert back to longwinded statements about how fantastic and world changing a specific series has been for them and then accuse others of being fan-boy editors. Let them fly high about themselves bluntly in the face of reason for their preferred personal tastes and ambitions. I, for one, thought about standing my ground and pointing out "facts-only", but maybe I just needed to find out that this is what parts of Wiki can be all about - some cowboys with keyboards who want it all their own way, judging by their 200+ edits on SF with everything anyone has added here to date. If they want to have it all their own way with absolutely no one else allowed to so much as write a single line, then they are welcome to their own limitations. Again, what a crap experience on the SF topic this has been. What has gone on here defies any logic and is purely selfish from the same people over and over again. I enjoy the writing and learning, not wanting to be a control freak as their 200+ edits to absolutely everything show. As we can see I have not even been allowed to add so much as three words as it stands with all their edits and reverts. I have been allow to add absolutely ZERO. NOTHING. So Bye. (Simonapro 20:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)) <--- And here is my signature that has been demanded from me by the same people.

Bye bye. Have a nice day. : ) Rick Norwood 22:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Good Article Nomination Review

Citations needed

Definition and scope section: Science fiction and fantasy subsection: Second paragraph:

Clarke himself famously stated that "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Citations needed

Fourth paragraph: "Indeed, it can be argued that science fiction is simply a modern form of fantasy." POV? Might need some form of citation. Who is making the argument? Wikipedia?

Sixth paragraph: "As a result, some theorists are able to emphasise the difference between SF and fantasy, while others emphasise continuity." A little too much use of the word "some" without elaboration.

Precursors of science fiction subsection: "plainly are science fiction, whereas Bram Stoker's Dracula (1897), based on the supernatural," Might prefer to leave as is, but some explanation of why it is plainly science fiction, or not, might be helpful (as in adding something like what genre Dracula plainly falls into, considering the article sees Frankenstein, or the Modern Prometheus as a plainly science fiction work, and Dracula a plainly non-science fiction work, both with gothic elements, but Frankenstein with the added science fiction elements noted in the same paragraph).

Purpose of science fiction section: "A popular notion is that science fiction attempts to predict the future. Some commentators go so far as to judge the "success" of a work of science fiction on the accuracy of its predictions." Any citations available?

As Ray Bradbury put it, "People ask me to predict the future, when all I want to do is prevent it." (where's the citation?)

Media: If there are any statistics available for the use of "most" and the like, it would be helpful to add to this section (as in "now most written science fiction appears in either hardback or paperback books, though there is still significant science fiction published in magazines and now online.").

Comics: "The majority of Americans before the 1950s never encountered any science fiction other than in the "funny papers," and assumed all SF was like this comic strip material; the phrase "that crazy Buck Rogers stuff" was often used to describe it, originally as an insult but later fondly by some fans." Anything that can be pointed to (Citation)? Both for the phrase and the "majority" comment.

Terminology section: Second paragraph: "This is also the preferred usage in the U.K." Why is the UK singled out? Because of the writers mentioned, like Aldiss?

Third paragraph: Harlan Ellison has derided the term "sci-fi" as a "hideous neologism" that "sounds like crickets fucking," a comment to which Ackerman responded by producing buttons bearing the slogan, "I love the sound of crickets making love." cite?

Fourth paragraph: "One ongoing line of thought (as reflected in editorials in various genre magazines)" Any editorials in particular? Any cites available? For example "as reflected in editorials in various genre magazines, like Gregory Benford's editorial "Why Bee's Sting" in the July 3, 2003 Analog issue). Preferably a cite that isn't made up like mine, and probably less wordy.

Overall: Great job.

Citations: I suppose all of this could have been covered by those books in the references section, but the direct quotes need more than just a list of books in a reference section. I realize that "while the citation of its sources is essential, the use of inline citations is desirable but not a mandatory requirement;" (from Wikipedia:What is a good article), but those direct quotes need direct citation. I'm not going to fail this article, nor pass it. I'll pass it along to the next reviewer to agree or disagree with my thoughts (or ignore such thoughts). —Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeBriggs (talk • contribs)