Talk:Science fiction/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

"as a literary genre" section

Don't know why I didn't notice this long ago, but the "Science Fiction as a literary genre" section is getting wonky. I haven't managed to track it back to its origins, but seems to have been tendentious from the start, an excuse to inject one of Orson Scott Card's anti-literary-culture rants. Now it has attracted a contrary or refining section, and neither passage is a good match for the heading, which should be something more like "Science fiction as serious literature." (SF "as" a literary genre would be a discussion of how it fits into our understanding of genres, how it is distinct from neighboring genres, and so on.) This article does not seem to me to be the place for an argument over how "literary" SF is, particularly one that starts with Card's brand of undergraduate defensiveness. I'd say, relabel this and rework it, or work some of the material into the "Definitions" section, or just cut it. RLetson (talk) 23:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Rather than cut it I have extended the section which maybe connects more to the opening quote from OSC and the section hangs together a bit better?Carey McCarthy (talk) 19:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Excellent job, Carey. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Carey McCarthy (talk) 11:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the work that has already been done, but the topic is more controversial than the discussion on that page makes it appear. Card's statements and thinking have engendered quite a volatile reaction among other respected writers/critics in the genre, but in this section Card's view is presented as if it were the consensus starting point for a discussion of science fiction as literature, rather than the view of a writer who seeks to establish his particular approach as the norm. Perhaps Card's point of view could be moved further down in the paragraph? It is certainly important to note it, as it is at the heart of one of several heated controversies about science fiction's place in literature. However, I believe that Card's position in the debate is a fairly radical one that that holds that science fiction is somehow separate from literature and must be judged only on the terms that he defines. I don't think it's appropriate that his words open the discussion of science fiction as literature, since he in fact negates that position. Furfish (talk) 01:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Although in my angrier moments I agree with Card's attitude towards the brahmans of obscurity and preciosity, I nonetheless moved Card down a bit, since LeGuin and Shippey's dialogue is more substantive and less polemical, and deserves prioritization. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Orange Mike. That puts Card's statements in the context of the larger argument. May I respectfully suggest one more change? I think the sentence "Many writers and critics, however, confuse clarity of language with lack of artistic merit" is not an objective statement of fact. (Or, the the very least, it lacks a citation.<g>) It would be more accurate to rephrase as "Card argues that many writers and critics," etc. Furfish (talk) 20:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Taken care of. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Great! Thanks, Mike! Furfish (talk) 00:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd still recommend a re-titling of the section, since the topic would seem to be the status of SF as literature or, to put it a better way, the literary status of SF. RLetson (talk) 20:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have no problem with new title to reflect the new content. Ursula Le Guin in a 2009 essay (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/aug/29/margaret-atwood-year-of-flood) replying to Margaret Atwood's contention that her (M A's)work is not SF says:

To my mind, The Handmaid's Tale, Oryx and Crake and now The Year of the Flood all

exemplify one of the things science fiction does, which is to extrapolate imaginatively from current trends and events to a near-future that's half prediction, half satire. But Margaret Atwood doesn't want any of her books to be called science fiction. In her recent, brilliant essay collection,Moving Targets, she says that everything that happens in her novels is possible and may even have already happened, so they can't be science fiction, which is "fiction in which things happen that are not possible today". This arbitrarily restrictive definition seems designed to protect her novels from being relegated to a genre still shunned by hidebound readers, reviewers and prize-awarders.

She doesn't want the literary bigots to shove her into the literary ghetto.

I agree with RLetson that this is probably best referenced in the 'definition of SF' section since Le G. herself makes the connection. ? Carey McCarthy (talk) 11:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

[rant]
My 2 ¢ents...
I've seen the subsection title change: "Science fiction as serious literature". Seriously? ;-) IMHO, the new title doesn't help at all, because it looks like a teenage feud. How about something along the lines of... "Science fiction literature vs. Mainstream literature (debate)" or "Genre fiction vs. Literary fiction (debate)"; "debate" is optional, of course, but points out that this is an actual on-going feud, not an approval rating.
And I believe that in this debate [a.k.a. acceptance vs. inclusion] it is not the SF writers' job to prove themselves worthy of being part of/accepted by the so-called "mainstream literature", but the opposition writers/critics' burden (who need to overcome their obsolete preconceptions that SF is a geek/kiddie/"social misfit" genre) to accept SF literature as, well... literature, because there is no such thing as "mainstream literature". ;) And besides, part of SF has already been accepted as "mainstream", like it or not.
Those who deny SF's rights as "real"/"serious" literature do it because they don't understand it, because they claim it is either "too wild" or "too far out-there", or because they blame SF writers for lack of literary values.
Unfortunately, even today (at the dawn of the 21st century), people still tend to fear and deny what they don't understand, instead of learning about and accepting it.
[/rant]
MDGx^☹☺ 23:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Why was my contribution to the definitions of science fiction deleted. Is this not *open* encyclopedia? I didn't delete anything

If you look at the edit summary of the deletion you will see the word 'unsourced', which means that the editor in question thinks that you should have quoted some reliable source for the information which you added. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not a place to add your own thoughts (original research); instead it is a place to use the works of others, preferably from a reliable source, to form a compedium of accepted knowlege.

If you think that you might want to continue editing and improving Wikipedia then you should consider registering as an editor, possibly under some pseudonym. This makes it easier for you to build up a reputation as a good editor, and also gives you access to a few other features.

One final point: when you write something on a 'discussion' page, it is considered good manners to sign your post by finishing with four tildes. This automatically adds your name or internet address and the date and time. Murray Langton (talk) 23:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Dune labelled as a space opera

I don't think this is right. It doesn't even seem to fit the definition given just prior -- the emphasis is on all those themes listed, not just action. Also, there's tremendous characterization. I've therefore removed it. Any thoughts?

The quote, for reference:

"Space opera is adventure science fiction set in outer space or on distant planets, where the emphasis is on action rather than either science or characterization. The conflict is heroic, and typically on a large scale. The best-selling science fiction book of all time[63] (with 12 million copies) is a space opera: Frank Herbert's Dune (1966), which sprawls over thousands of years, a multitude of planets in and beyond an Imperium, and themes as diverse as environmentalism and ecology, empires, religion and jihad, gender issues, and heroism."

-The Fwanksta (talk) 06:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

First thought, even before doing any research, is that Dune itself does not cover thousands of years but part of a single lifetime and that it is set on two planets. So minimally, the wording is imprecise. The "space opera" label strikes me as imprecise as well--and the definition on which it rests is incomplete and also imprecise (see the WP Space Opera entry for details). (Dune fits more comfortably in the "planetary romance" category, though even there it tends to strain at the boundaries.) <Pause for Googling.> The sales figures, at least, seem to be in the ballpark, according to Brian Herbert's Afterword to the 40th-anniversary edition of the novel. RLetson (talk) 08:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Jameson on "Fantasy"

At Sindinero's suggestion (see last paragraph of quoted dialogue below), I'm putting the issue of a disputed sentence up for discussion on the talk page. The issue arises under the "Fantasy" heading (one short paragraph). The issue is whether a quoted sentence by Frederick Jameson is accurate and clarifies the distinction between science fiction (SF) and fantasy. My position is that Jameson's statement is (1) in some aspects too ambiguous to convey any meaning, (2) is extremely inaccurate of "mode of production" and "historical materialism" are given the Marxian interpretations that Jameson, a Marxist theorist, seems to intend, (3) also inaccurate in it's asserting that religious content is a valid criterion for distinguishing between between SF and fantasy, (4) largely inaccurate in asserting that good-versus-evil is a valid criterion (although fantasy does have good-versus-evil plots oftener than SF does). The main issue is whether "mode of production" and "historical materialism"--or even just plain "materialism" (the Marxian opposite of Hegel's focus on nonmaterial ideas)--are defining characteristics of SF but are absent from fantasy.

Here, copied and pasted, is our dialogue (or you can go to my talk page to get it in more readable form):

I've restored two specific parts of the article that you modified:

I removed the clarification in the lead about fantasy. This was unsourced, but the main reason I deleted your contribution was that the article is about Science fiction, and the lead has to reflect this. That much information about fantasy makes for a disproportionate lead. See Wikipedia:Lead#Relative_emphasis.

I restored the deleted claim by Fredric Jameson on the difference between SF and fantasy. This is a sourced claim, and Jameson is one of the leading literary critics who works on SF; it's entirely apposite to its section, which is, like the quote, about the difference between SF and fantasy.

If you disagree with either of these points, fair enough; propose your changes on the article's talk page and all the editors currently working on this article can try to come towards a consensus on these points.

Keep up the hard work, and if you have any questions, place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Sindinero (talk) 12:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sindinero. You may not be aware of it, but Fredric Jameson is primarily a philosopher and Marxist theorist; I am aware of only one science fiction book by him. I don't say "Marxist" as an accusation but, rather, as a way of emphasizing the inappropriateness of the Marxist language in the deleted sentence. The sentence is this: "Fredric Jameson, meanwhile, has characterized the difference between the two genres by describing science fiction as turning 'on a formal framework determined by concepts of the MODE OF PRODUCTION rather than those of religion' - that is, science fiction texts are bound by an inner logic based more on HISTORICAL MATERIALISM than on magic or the forces of good and evil." The two upper-cased phrases refer to Marxian concepts that I am thoroughly familiar with but that you may not be. ("Historical materialism," by the way, is essentially a rewording of "dialectical materialism.") Those two concepts--"mode of production" and "historical materialism"--have absolutely nothing to do with science fiction or with fantasy literature.

I suggest that you read the quoted (and redeleted) sentence closely and then try to restate it in your own words. To oversimplify, "mode of production" refers to society's methods of gathering or producing goods in five successive Marxian stages of history: primitive communism (hunter-gatherer societies), slavery, feudalism, capitalism, and final communism. Neither the capitalist mode of production (essentially factory production) nor any earlier mode of production has anything to do with "an inner logic" found in science fiction. For that matter, even "inner logic" defies interpretation. As for "historical materialism," that refers to Marx's idea that the course of history is metaphysically determined by material forces of production (workers, resources, other inputs, tools, etc.) rather than by -- here Marx challenges Hegel -- forces in the nonmaterial realm of ideas. Moreover, "historical materialism" refers to the Hegelian thesis-antithesis-synthesis "dialectical" process, a process that again has nothing to do with science fiction.

Although it is true that science fiction does not ordinarily embody religious concepts, neither does fantasy -- unless you abstract the word "religious" into the broader term "supernaturalistic," in which case the latter word is far more appropriate. Furthermore, Jameson's juxtaposing (1) "concepts of the mode of production" and (2) "concepts of . . . religion" is totally inapproriate. The two types of concepts are unrelated, not oppositional. What Marx juxtaposed with "concepts of the mode of production" was concepts of thought and ideas.

In short, the quoted sentence is not only highly inaccurate but, where 99% of readers are concerned, meaningless. If you don't agree that it is meaningless, then once more I suggest: try to rewrite it in your own words.

Meanwhile, you are mostly right about adding material to a few sentences with references. Still, the references remain accurate (assuming they were originally accurate) for elements of the sentence that are still intact. An exception is the revision I just made to the article's very first sentence, which (along with the second sentence) was incredibly inaccurate. For that sentence, I have taken your criticism to heart by deleting the three references. They are either inaccurate or (more likely) have had things they said taken out of context to produce invalid generalizations.Atticusattor (talk) 18:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response. I'm pretty familiar with both Jameson and Marx, but thanks for the good faith effort to make sure we're both on the same page. I think I understand your point, but I do still disagree. Essentially, you seem to be arguing several things: a) that Marxism doesn't have anything to do with SF; b) that the sentence is erroneous; c) that the sentence is too difficult to understand.

Let's take these in order. But first, a little clarification is in order. Jameson is primarily a literary critic, and as such is one of the foremost literary critics today working on SF. Besides the monograph Archaeologies of the Future he has several articles dating back to the seventies on SF, and has worked with the journal Science Fiction Studies; his work is close to Darko Suvin's, who is, if anybody is, one of the elder deans of academic SF scholarship. FJ's approach is largely Marxist, yes, but he also works within other literary-critical traditions, such as psychoanalysis and (post)structuralism. Now to Marx. Your gloss is helpful, but somewhat inaccurate. Dialectical materialism is not equivalent to historical materialism: the first is generally characterized as a science/philosophy, while the second is considered to be a historiography or philosophy of history. Now to Hegel; he's actually irrelevant in this context, but the thesis-antithesis-synthesis description of the dialectic isn't his, it's (pretty sure here) Fichte's, although that's a common misconception. Sindinero (talk) 04:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

In the Jameson/Marx context, historical materialism (which could mean lots of things if we ignored the source) IS the same as Marx's dialectical materialism. And despite Mueller's misconceived 1958 article calling Hegelian dialectics a "legend," Hegel's philosophy is full of thesis-antithesis-synthesis dialectics. But they aren't in Hegel's Logic, which is where Mueller was looking. Hegel, of course, didn't use the term "thesis" and rarely said "antithesis" and 'synthesis"; he used other language, such as "second moment" and "third moment." But I'm quibbling. The essential point is that, by any reasonable interpretation of "historical materialism," that concept in no way clarifies the content of either science fiction or fantasy. By the way, if you think the concept of thesis-antithesis-synthesis dialectics belongs exclusively to Fichte, you might want to read paragraph 50 of the preface to Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit (Miller translation). (Atticusattor)

So, then: a) You're right. SF and Marxism don't, per se, have anything to do with one another (although a recent study by Carl Freedman, I believe, has claimed otherwise). That's also irrelevant. I wasn't claiming that they are connected, nor does quoting Jameson (who is, by any account, a reliable source) imply that they are. He offers an interesting, and useful reading of the distinction between SF and fantasy. Just because he's in the article doesn't mean that "we," or WP, agree with him. That's not the standard for inclusion; notability is. Sindinero (talk) 04:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying that YOU are claiming that SF and Marxism are connected. I'm saying that JAMESON is IMPLYING that SF can be defined, or at least clarified, by Marxian concepts. While we're still on the "historical materialism" concept, think carefully about what he says: "science fiction texts are bound by an inner logic based more on HISTORICAL MATERIALISM than on magic or the forces of good and evil." To be sure, science fiction (1) eschews magic and (2) sometimes (but not always) avoids conflict between good and evil." But those two points aren't the issue I raised. I'm saying that SF doesn't revolve around anything that can usefully be called materialism. Indeed, SF is more often concerned with IDEAS (the Marxian opposite of matter). And attaching the adjective "historical" to "materialism"--yet saying that historical materialism has nothing to do with Marxian concepts--merely clouds the issue. Precisely what is this historical materialism that Jameson finds in most if not all science fiction? I don't think the fact that most SF is set in the future justifies the use of "historical." But then what does justify that word? (Atticusattor)

b) again, the criterion for inclusion in WP is not truth, but notability. WP is an encyclopedia and tertiary source: we collect, in the best, clearest way possible, what the experts say. I'd gently suggest you review policy on this issue; looking at your talk page, you seem to have had issues in the past with WP:OR. So whether it's true or not, it is notable, since it comes from an expert on the subject. Don't agree? Find a reliable source that allows you to offer a counter-claim. (Incidentally, I think FJ's is a very good characterization, since it abstracts from pure considerations of creature/character, and looks at how history works in a text like The Lord of the Rings vs. one like Foundation. I think you're simply incorrect to say that MoP is unrelated to concepts of religion. Perhaps if you took a moment to look at the original source, rather than simply dismissing it, you could see why. Sindinero (talk) 04:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree that the criterion for statements should be truth. That is why I object to using the two Marxian concepts to define SF and fantasy. Those concepts have nothing to do with either SF or fantasy. Take "mode of production." In Jameson's Marxian terminology, that refers to feudalism, capitalism, etc. If you think it should be interpreted otherwise, you need to throw out the incredible ambiguity and say precisely what you really mean. For example, if that is supposed to mean scientific technology, then use those two words: some SF relates to futuristic technology. But technology is a micro concept covering a multitude of inventions, whereas mode of production is a macro concept describing how a society produces its goods--with factories owned by capitalists when the mode of production is capitalism, with agricultural serfdom and cottage industry when the mode of production is feudalism. Jameson describes SF as turning "on a formal framework determined by concepts of the MODE OF PRODUCTION." He is plainly wrong. SF has nothing to do with the mode of production.

Jameson does go on to say "rather than religion." But now he is implying that one difference between SF and fantasy is that the latter tends to involve religion in its plots. No doubt you could cite some examples--I can't--where fantasy plots do involve religion, but Jameson's implication that one criterion for identifying fantasy is religious content simply isn't true. And when Jameson says "concepts of the MODE OF PRODUCTION rather than those of religion" he is falsely implying that religion is in some way the opposite of the mode of production. That isn't true either. (Atticusattor)

c) this is a good point. I will try to think of how to revise this, but I don't think it's a question of "putting it in your own words" - FJ's concepts and terminology are technical, and somewhat difficult in their own right. It's not up to us to dumb them down. I don't expect to be able to understand complex vocabulary about geology when I read the WP article on plate tectonics, for example. Some things are difficult for a reason: what WP provides is, ideally, the clearest, most accurate summary of the major, notable views on a topic and good, acknowledged sources, so that the curious reader might know where to go to find more information if there's something they don't understand.

I strongly object to your saying that removing the ambiguity from "technical" concepts (technical only in a Marxian sense) constitutes dumbing them down. Clarity is clarity. It is not catering to stupidity or dumbness. And neither is is a matter of oversimplifying. It is instead a matter of following a basic rule of writing: "Say what you mean." (Atticusattor)

Finally, I can only assume you're editing in good faith - you've clearly put a lot of time and thought into this, which we all appreciate. But do you see how writing something like "I suggest that you read the quoted (and redeleted) sentence closely and then try to restate it in your own words" might come across as condescending, arrogant, and/or schoolmarmish? Clearly I've read the sentence if I've bothered to restore it. I'll assume you weren't deliberately trying to be insulting with your comments, but it didn't come across in the best way. Sindinero (talk) 04:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see that my quoted statement was either condescending, arrogant, or insulting. I'm simply trying to make you aware that Jameson's sentence is essentially either meaningless or false, depending on how you interpret and rewrite it. As a related point, I was trying to get you to recognize and focus on the ambiguity of the sentence--and its inaccuracy. What I said still goes. The sentence as it stands is both ambiguous and inaccurate--in many ways. It does absolutely nothing to clarify the content of fantasy, and neither does it accurately distinguish between SF and fantasy. The only thing in the sentence that even approaches accuracy is the idea that fantasy more often than SF involves conflict between good and evil. The reference to religion is nonsense, probablythe result of Jameson's "dumbing down" the concept of supernaturalism (which IS an aspect of fantasy) to the more widely understood concept of religion. Religion may be steeped in supernaturalism, but it isn't the same thing. (Atticusattor)

I'm restoring the Jameson quote for the reasons given. If you think it's factually incorrect, find another source to offer an alternate view. If you think it's poorly worded, look at the original, in context, and see if you can make it clearer. If you want to change it again, please discuss it on the talk page first so that we can involve other editors and work towards a consensus, as per WP:BRD. This is all WP policy, not me pushing an agenda or trying to dominate this article. Sindinero (talk) 22:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC) Sindinero (talk) 04:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The above was copied from Atticusattor's talk page. My response, in brief, is that the sentence in question should not be deleted, as it meets the criteria for verifiability - Jameson is a well-established literary critic, and one of the foremost academic writers on science fiction. If others feel the sentence isn't clear, or needs more elaboration, let me know. Sindinero (talk) 04:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

My first concern is in exaggerating Jameson's importance as a critic; he's no Darko Suvin (not that I necessarily worship Darko' approaches either). Thus, is the prominent inclusion of this minor figure's ideologically-formed position giving undue emphasis to the opinion of somebody that the editors at Baen, Tor, Ace, DelRey, etc., to say nothing of the attendees at a WorldCon or the readers of Locus & NYRSF, neither seriously heed nor particularly respect? --Orange Mike | Talk 17:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I think 'ideologically-formed' is unfair. Are you saying that because you've read his work on SF and find it to be dogmatically Marxist, or simply because he's often identified as a Marxist? Indeed, the question of 'ideology' is itself a complex and fraught one, and one could make a convincing case that either the assumption of a position free of ideology, or the privileging of certain sectors of the SF world as being 'closer to the source' would itself be a highly ideological move. I don't think it's tenable to suggest that any of the other SF constituencies you mention have somehow escaped being 'ideologically-formed,' but that's another question.

I do agree that we should avoid undue emphasis, but Jameson's is certainly a notable view within academic, scholarly criticism (which is the area I'm more familiar with) on SF. He may not be the most prominent voice, but that's not the standard for notability. He's hardly a fringe view, in any case. My tendency here would be to be inclusive, and balance out the possibility of undue emphasis by finding other perspectives on the difference between SF and fantasy. As it stands, Jameson is the only scholarly source in that section (discounting the collection of bibliographies), and I think this is a problem. I originally added Jameson's claim because it's an interesting, somewhat novel, and fairly compelling claim, and, if you read it in context, really doesn't require much of an ideological predisposition to accept, let alone some kind of dogmatic Marxism. The claim boils down to the idea that SF's thought experiments are essentially historical (meaning they portray, and depend upon the interrelation between spheres such as the technological, economic, political, ideological and, by implication, problematize a clear-cut black-and-white division of characters or groups into good and evil), while those of fantasy are essentially ahistorical (meaning they rely on logics of religion, ethics, magic, etc., - 'logics,' that is, not necessarily a portrayal of themes relating to religion, &c.). This has explanatory power in the way that a simple, positivistic distinction based on character traits or types does not, and makes a lot of sense if you consider SF and fantasy works by the same writer - take The Left Hand of Darkness compared to A Wizard of Earthsea, for example. The distinction between the two could be said to be analogous to that between history and myth.

Incidentally, Jameson's concepts here are pretty distant from those of vulgar or orthodox Marxism, which is another reason I'd push back on the 'ideologically-formed' label. If anything connected to Marxism is tainted as 'ideologically-formed,' then one would have to chuck a regrettably large amount of contemporary, academic approaches to literary studies, anthropology, history, political science, etc. "Mode of production" is originally a Marxian concept, but in a general sense it is a widely accepted analytic category. Even a game like Civilization IV, to take a very different type of example, would hardly be thinkable without the basic concept, and a SF work like Asimov's Foundation series exemplifies, in my opinion, much of what FJ means with the term.

That's my two cents. In brief, I recommend keeping the passage, rephrasing it if necessary, and balancing it by adding other scholarly interpretations of the difference between the two genres that actually have some critical leverage, rather than just relying on anecdotal or positivistic typologies. Sindinero (talk) 20:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I haven't read a great deal of academic writing on sf but I was under the impression that Jameson is regarded as a significant literary commentator on the field -- one with more academic standing than many. There are academics such as Gary Westfahl who might find more favour within the field, but I think Jameson is a respectable source. I am concerned, though, that using a rather abstract definition in a very short paragraph that's trying to define the boundary between sf and fantasy is not doing the reader the best possible service. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I should add that I think the article overall is not in great shape; it's so fragmented into topic headings as to be unreadable. Perhaps a more narrative structure to the article would make it easier to include this sort of academic material: if it can be well-supported, and balanced as you suggest, then I think it could be a useful addition. That would be a major project, though. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree about the general state of the article - it could be more encyclopedic and coherent if it had more of a narrative structure. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to undertake this now. Are there any strong objections, if I qualify Jameson as a "Marxist literary critic," to keeping the sentence until we can balance it or incorporate it better? With that qualification, nobody will think that this is a universal claim or the accepted distinction between the two genres. I'm reluctant to lose the claim entirely - Jameson is a reliable source, and a respected one. If people are curious to see the quote in context and don't have access to the book, I could type up the more extended passage here when I have time, just let me know. Sindinero (talk) 15:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Has Jameson's assertion been addressed in the literature, preferably in English as opposed to High Academese? I fear that (at least as reported here) it's phrased in such arcane terminology that I can't even be sure I understand it well enough to rebut or concur with it; but surely his colleagues and rivals have done so? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll look into this; the book it appeared in is fairly recent, and this chapter hadn't appeared previously as an independent article, so a response to this specific claim might not yet be out there. In my opinion, Jameson's prose is pretty lucid, considering the difficulty of the conceptual material he's working with. But I do think that, difficult or easy to understand as it may be, it's worth recognizing that literary studies is a specialized field like many others, with its own set of challenges and specific discourses. As someone whose understanding of, say, theoretical physics is lay at best, I wouldn't approach an article on wormholes and expect that the cited literature conform to my level of understanding, because I recognize that this is a complex field that takes years of patient study to master. I'm not sure this is what you're implying, but I'd really resist any suggestion that literary scholarship, as opposed to work in the hard sciences, be instantly and effortlessly comprehensible to the layperson to lay any claim to validity. And again, in my understanding, whether we rebut or concur with an expert opinion from a reliable source is immaterial as grounds for inclusion - that would seem to tend towards original research.

And just to be totally clear, I'm emphatically not suggesting that academic work claims exclusive authority or priority over nonacademic work here; the self-understandings of SF publishers and fandom are sociologically relevant and equally worthy of inclusion. Academic theory doesn't trump nonacademic theory or day-to-day literary practice in this case, in my opinion. But Jameson's status as an academic shouldn't rule him out as a source either. Sindinero (talk) 17:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Paranormal abilities

"Paranormal abilities such as mind-reading, mind control, mental telepathy, telekinesis, and self-teleportation." I was curious as to what the implied distinction was between "mind-reading" and "mental telepathy," so I clicked the links. "Mind-reading" links to a page about stage magic. It seems inappropriate here. Also, "mental telepathy" is redundant; is there any other kind of telepathy? And the prefix in "self-teleportation" is unnecessary, as any form of teleportation should qualify as a paranormal ability. WaxTadpole (talk) 20:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

All good points; fixed. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Along these lines, the article begins by saying "Science fiction is a genre of fiction dealing with imaginary but more or less plausible (or at least non-supernatural) content such as... paranormal abilities." The article does go on to expand on some of these paranormal aspects, including telekinesis, mind control, and others. Wouldn't this fall under the umbrella of "supernatural"? Kansan (talk) 22:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Those are two different things. Para = alongside, super = above. Paranormal is something that we expect to explain sometime, supernormal remains beyond our understanding. Cheers, Greenodd (talk) 08:51, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Template

I just massively revamped the Template:Science fiction, my largest effort at editing a somewhat well known page on WP. (most of my edits are to less trafficked pages). I have not begun to link it to all the articles it now contains. I do welcome feedback, and I will strive to not "own" this new version. If people feel some reverts are needed, I would understand (ouch!), but i would appreciate discussion at the template talk page, where i started the discussion a few days ago. at least one editor did encourage me to go forward, though they were not aware of exactly what i had planned. significant changes: no more links to categories (except 1, which i am planning to turn into a list, that being SF publishers), many links to smaller, less notable articles removed, and i added "works" and "people".This was fun, hope it shows.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 09:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Humanoid Computers?

That is a new one to me. Apparently sourced to an Orson Scott Card book... Puddytang (talk) 03:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Archiving

...was royally screwed up. I've restored several threads and adjusted the archive template to work correctly now. However, these threads have not been recovered. If they are important to the editors here, you may restore them to this page and let the bot archive for you.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 02:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're saying they're not in any archives at all as it stands, but if so I suggest just pasting them into the most recent archive, just for the sake of preserving the history. 24.190.183.52 (talk) 03:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

They are not in there at all; paste them here if you like and the bot will archive in chrono order. There will need to be minor cleanup by removing hyphens.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 03:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I've done it manually. 24.190.183.52 (talk) 09:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Asimov

In the "Hard SF" subsection of the "Subgenres" section, should Asimov not be mentioned alongside the "working scientists" category, similar to Benford et al.? After all, while doubtlessly more prominent as an author, he was a biochemist, and held tenure at Boston University, for several years in a teaching capacity. FungusFromYuggoth (talk) 21:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Criticism

I added the following under the subtitle of "criticism":

"G. K. Chesterton wrote that "...this cult of the future is not only a weakness but a cowardice of the age...The modern mind is forced towards the future by a certain sense of fatigue, not unmixed with terror, with which it regards the past...it is a fear of the past; a fear not merely of the evil in the past, but of the good in the past also...so many...faiths we cannot hold; so many ...heroisms we cannot imitate; so many great efforts of monumental building or of military glory which seem to us at once sublime and pathetic. The future is a refuge from the fierce competition of our forefathers. The older generation, not the younger, is knocking at our door...It is pleasant to play with children, especially the unborn children. The future is a blank wall on which every man can write his own name as large as he likes; the past I find already covered with illegible scribbles, such as Plato, Isaiah, Shakespeare, Michael Angelo, Napoleon. I can make the future as narrow as myself; the past is obliged to be as broad and turbulent as humanity...[men] look forward with enthusiasm, because they are afraid to look back."(ref)Chesterton, G. K. (1910). What's Wrong with the World. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)(endref)"

First, there is already criticism in the "serious literature" subsection, except that it has WP:UNDUE response from LeGuin.

The fact that a "serious literature" subsection is needed, rather implies "criticism" IMO. I wonder if one would find that subsection under "Drama", "Works of Theology", "Literature about Chemistry", etc. Few people would wonder if those were "serious."

Second, I suppose that the genre is too weak and unimportant, and its adherents too sensitive to be criticized. A detailed criticism of "Miss Midville 1996" might fall into that category, assuming she/it was otherwise notable. Just too lightweight to criticize. Is this the general opinion of all? Student7 (talk) 19:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Chesterton's death was well before the creation of science fiction as a separate literature. His screed is simply part of his lifelong quarrel with the perceived horrors of the present and crusade against the hideous possibility of a future distinguishable from the past; it is irrelevant to the genre, and in fact does not mention it. You may find it applicable to SF; but that, of course, is original research and synthesis. (I will note in passing that science fiction is the sole branch of literature where those who believe themselves to be criticizing it are generally found to be criticizing either works in other media which claim [illicitly, in many cases] ancestry in the genre; or ill-remembered exemplars of the worst of the genre's early years.) --Orange Mike | Talk 02:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually he was criticizing (among others) H.G. Wells. There were a lot of "futuristic" writing at the time, which has not survived the passage of time, for example, regarding "The Flying Machine Boys," and lighter-than-air craft, that sort of thing. Just because it wasn't as technologically informed as ours is today, doesn't mean that there wasn't a) a lot of it and b) that the identical comments apply. Chesterton wasn't commenting on how "technologically advanced" the SF was, but on why anyone would be interested in that type of escape literature in the first place.

The same comments apply today. If children once wasted time on "Pong" and now waste it on much more advanced computer games, how does that change the character of criticism on wasting time? Why wouldn't comments about wasting dozens of hours on "Pong" not apply today to children who waste hours a day on (say) "Sim"? Student7 (talk) 15:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The burden is on you to provide evidence that Chesterton was talking about SF and not just generally ranting. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to add to the discussion, since I was the one who removed the 'criticism' section. I agree with Orangemike, but I would still find a 'Criticism' section out of place even if the Chesterton quote were sourced to SF - I haven't been able to find other major genres or literary forms that include a criticism section, in the sense of dismissals of the entire genre, and I don't think it's warranted here. I do think that the negative response (among others, on the part of "high culture" or "literature proper") is an important part of the history of science fiction, as of any popular or mass genre. Perhaps the section now called "Science fiction studies" could be expanded and reworked to include this, and also the responses from within the SF community and academia in defense of the genre. A section called "criticism" is just too crude - Chesterton's view wasn't "criticism" in any meaningful sense of the word (as in a detailed and sustained engagement with a literary object), but was simply a gripe/dismissal.

I also don't think it's accurate (or a good way of seeking consensus) to allege that "the genre is too weak and unimportant, and its adherents too sensitive to be criticized." The second claim is simply unfair - a genre doesn't really have 'adherents', and those into SF (ranging from members of smalltown fanclubs to authors and critics such as Thomas Pynchon, Alfred Döblin, Fredric Jameson, and Walter Benjamin) are among its most engaged critics. Second, it's simply sloppy literary history to claim that the genre is weak and unimportant, unless we're actually still living in Chesterton's day. SF fandom aside, no serious contemporary literary scholar would agree with this. Sindinero (talk) 02:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Per country section

Shouldn't we better make it "per language" section? It makes more sence to have sections such as "Francophone SF" or "Russophone SF", rather than a list of countries where the respective language is\was spoken. Also, this will fix a dillemmma of listing Quebec under "Europe". Garret Beaumain (talk) 09:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

WorldCat Genres

Hello, I'm working with OCLC, and we are algorithmically generating data about different Genres, like notable Authors, Book, Movies, Subjects, Characters and Places. We have determined that this Wikipedia page has a close affintity to our detected Genere of science-fiction. It might be useful to look at [3] for more information. Thanks. Maximilianklein (talk) 23:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

This is how WorldCat defines SF: "works of fantasy that deal with possible though not necessarily probable events and are based approximately on scientific principles, e.g. space travel, time travel, etc. ...also ... works in which mankind confronts alien cultures or environments."

Paranormal

The first line reads: "settings in the future, futuristic science and technology, space travel, parallel universes, aliens, and paranormal abilities". I know that the SyFy channel (formerly SciFi) includes the paranormal in their definition of "science fiction", but they also include wrestling, make up, and gameshows in their programming as well. The paranormal is supposed to lie outside the realm of science, as stated on its page: "designates experiences that lie outside 'the range of normal experience or scientific explanation'". As the Science Fiction page states: "Science fiction is largely based on writing rationally about alternative possible worlds or futures. ... within the context of the story, its imaginary elements are largely possible within scientifically established or scientifically postulated laws of nature." Thus, they are two completely different things. Mind control, mind reading, and telekinesis are technically impossible. If you were to explain these as technology, it makes sense, but as it is described here, no. I move that the reference to the paranormal be removed from the page, as it seems to be something more related to fantasy.Talvieno (talk) 13:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The sciences or pseudo-sciences of parapsychology and the like have been a part of science fiction, even as defined by hard science fiction advocates like John W. Campbell, from the beginnings of the genre. Don't let the irrelevancies like what appears on the SyFylis Channel affect this article. I'm restoring the language. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

poetry

My section on SF poetry (there had been nothing about this in the entire article) was removed with a comment about "as before" (I don't know what "before" is being referred to), only one ref was used. What's wrong with one good ref? I've not seen a policy in Wikipedia that says we need two (three, four,??)refs for noncontroversial material. I specifically picked the most authoritative sources rather than loading up the ref section. Any-way, I actually used more than one source. In addition, I linked to at least two Wik articles dealing with SF poetry. For some-one with access to the great Clute and Nichols encyclopedia of SF, that could be used; There is also The Speculative Muse: An Introduction to Science Fiction Poetry by Eng. But I don't have access to either one, so I can't specifically quote them. To the person who reverted: if you don't agree, why not put a "ref wanted" tag on instead of ruthlessly cutting?Kdammers (talk) 13:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I've put in the appropriate template; more sources is better, regardless of the fact that nobody could challenge Dr. Elgin as a reliable source. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Okeh, I've added another ref. (Stableford, hardly a slouch). I don't understand why you took out the three or so collections of poetry I listed. The other sub-genres have specific examples.Kdammers (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

On Time Travel

Not mentioned, but earlier than Twain comes Dickens' Christmas Carol which I rather imagine is the first major appearance of time travel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.13.209 (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The Dickens, though, is either religious or fantasy (depending on your own belief system); it is not science-fictional in any way whatsoever. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Use of the word "plausible" in the lead

As it stands, this article's lead begins with: "Science fiction is a genre of fiction with imaginative but more or less plausible content such as settings in the future, futuristic science and technology, space travel, parallel universes, aliens, and paranormal abilities." I'm going to call the use of the phrase "more or less plausible" here. Many famous works of science fiction lie outside the realm of "more or less plausible"—the universe of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy being a prime example. I realize that many definitions of science fiction either implicitly or explicitly exclude works that are incredibly implausible. However, many definitions don't exclude works based on implausibility, as is evident by the fact that Hitchhiker's and other highly implausible works are widely considered to be science fiction.

So what I'm proposing is this: We take the phrase "more or less plausible" out of the opening sentence of the article. We then expand the lead's second paragraph to make clearer the fact that some definitions allow for implausibility, while others limit things to the "more or less plausible" realms of speculation. I think the "definition of science fiction" section could use a little expansion to touch on this, as currently it's just a couple of quotes by different authors strung together rather than actual encyclopedic text. (Erff. Not sure how to word that. What I meant was that the section shouldn't just be a few people's individual opinions on the definition of science fiction. Ideally, we'd find a reliable source that discusses different views on the definition of science fiction and maybe gives us an idea of how commonly these views are held.) Cymru.lass in America (talk) 16:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

"more or less" anything is hardly an encyclopedic adjective.

Most fiction requires a certain "suspension of disbelief," (but not total) which I assume the original author was aiming at. But, yes, Hitchhiker and other satire are hardly in that category either. More precisely "satire with Science Fiction as its target." Student7 (talk) 16:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

History

Rereading the "history" section, a few names seem to be out of place, notably:

Stanislaw Lem included in the same group of writers as Heinlein and Van Vogt.

Pohl mentioned as the editor who took Galaxy away from the Campbell model, rather than H. L Gold.

Poul Anderson included with Larry Niven. (Anderson came much earlier.)

Thoughts?

Rick Norwood (talk) 12:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

There being no response, I will make the changes. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:32, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

What sub genre does Star Trek belong in?

I had previously placed Star Trek in the space western sub genre but now I'm not really sure if that's the right label for it. Time travel seems like a possible candidate but the thing is it doesn't always occur in the franchise. Any input would be appreciated. Please contact me on my talk page if you have the right label. Thanx.-Taeyebaar (talk) 07:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Star Trek was more than just another space western like Tom Corbett or Lost in Space. Some early Star Trek episodes were written by sf writers who knew the genre and contained genuine sf ideas. Examples include The City on the Edge of Forever, Amok Time, and The Cage. But Star Trek mined all of the major sf tropes, so it doesn't fit into just one subgenre. It's major classification is space travel. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Well there isn't one here mentioned. I'll do some research and find sources on creating an article for a missing sub-genre clearly not mentioned on the list.-Taeyebaar (talk) 02:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

As this article says, with quotes from Damon Knight and others, science fiction does not fit neatly into "genre" classification in the same way that "western" or "mystery" do. Star Trek borrowed from all of the subgenres of science fiction, not from one "missing" sub-genre. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Could plausible be "military." The ship is subject to military discipline and many of the themes revolve around whether the captain (or a crew member) can ignore, disregard, or "forget" orders! One of its objects, besides "exploring the universe," a stated objective, is to project the galactic government ("show the flag"), often against hostile forces.

I've seen "action" more than any other genre, but that seems not to be an option.

It has been around long enough to categorize, not by SF authors themselves, like Knight, but by researchers/college professors. Genuine .edu sites (which I haven't found, admittedly). Student7 (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Star Fleet is explicity not a military organization. It's mission is to explore, not to enter into conflicts. It is expressly forbidden to enter into conflicts; that is its prime directive. As for "action", while many episodes feature action, others don't. Measure of a Man comes to mind. Rick Norwood (talk) 23:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• It is certainly not "military", and not "western". There's no war, the characters are not military personnel, neither they are rogues or outcasts in a lawless "wild west" world. They are state-employed researchers, a futuristic 'Jacques-Yves Cousteau' team, albeit with weapons for self-protection. Star Trek may be space opera to some extent, as it uses faster-than-light travel, multiple alien species, adventure and conflicts.Beaumain (talk) 04:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Duh! With the ability to change subject matters for every episode no series really belongs to just one sub genre. When they fix the warp drive (again) it's hard fiction, when they go on the holodeck it's cyberpunk, when they battle hostile aliens it's military sf, when they encounter odd cultures it's soft fiction,… (continue as you please) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.125.89 (talk) 09:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

• This limited variety of themes (especially compared to a broader variety in, say, Dune novels) does not make ST a multi-genre series. And there's certainly no cyberpunk, which is not only about fixing computers and using VR. Overall, Star Trek is what I'd prefer to call call "space fiction", and what largely fits the basic description given in the space opera article. ST is a close relative of the Battlestar Galactica, Babylon 5 and Mass Effect, which exeplify the more realistic take on space opera (as opposed to the likes of Star Wars and John Carter).Beaumain (talk) 13:28, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

sci-fi themes serious issues. Smallville then Space Western/Space Frontier mess

There seems to be a few issues that require community consensus. I don't think we can discuss so many issues on the various talk pages but because they're mentioned here on the sci-fi page I'd prefer to discuss here. There's been edit warring (both intentional and unintentional) without discussion. So I wanna go step by step.

smallville

Re:Smallville. I don't think this should be listed as a sci-fi TV show. I had a dispute with a user over this and I think is belongs under superhero fiction or science fantasy. I'd like some insight to this. All the movies regarding marvel and DC heroes go under super hero fiction, I can't seem understand how smallville is an exception since it's a superheros TV show, which have been listed under superhero fiction.

So can we please clear it up here?

I apologize for taking so long to get back to you. Real-life demands keep me from Wikipedia except in small, intermittent intervals.

First, I do not see the tiny reference to Smallville here as a "serious issue"; it is mentioned in passing as the "longest-running North American science fiction television series." "Science fiction" is not Wikipedia's label for Smallville, but that of many, many sources. Here are just a few: Sci Fi Now Sci Fi Stream Science Fiction Encyclopedia

Second, this article is a broad overview of science fiction, which involves so many overlapping and sub- genres that its definition, as Damon Knight famously said, "is what we point to when we say it." This is not the place to worry about which sub-category a single TV show is assigned to.

Third, I was originally trying to provide a replacement for a dead link. I did find an article that supported the statement (about the longest running show), and right there in that article, Smallville was called a "science fiction/fantasy" show. I inserted the citation and simultaneously removed your edit that tried to qualify the "science-fiction-ness" of the show. I assumed that the info in the cited article would clarify the statement for you. Instead, you repeatedly reverted my edit, deleting the citation I was trying to add. I am putting it back until this conflict is resolved. - Gorthian (talk) 22:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

-Since Smallville goes under science fiction/fantasy as you and the source stated, it's better placed under science fantasy, though i'd prefer superhero fiction. But I'll wait for other members to make an opinion69.165.246.181 (talk) 05:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

It's only a passing reference here, not a classification. Smallville has its own article; you might want to check out or modify the categories there. - Gorthian (talk) 05:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The Italy Subsection

This section has some original research, unsourced, in poor English. Can I edit or delete it?

"Even though from the end of the Fifties science fiction became in Italy one of the mosto popular genres, its popular success is not followed by the critics success; in spite of an active and organized fandom we haven0t had, if not rarely, an authentic interest on the part of the Italian cultural élite, reluctant if not intolerant towards Sci-Fi" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultan42 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

New lead

This article is begging for a filled out lead section. Any suggestions if I were to start? Dontreadalone (talk) 06:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Television section

There's been a recent bit of back-and-forth about whether Doctor Who should be included in the "History" section. The justification for its exclusion, which is reasonable enough on its own terms, was that the rest of the paragraph was about North American science fiction television. But that paragraph sits oddly with the rest of the "History" section, which is otherwise entirely about literary science fiction. It's also odd to mention all those science fiction series of the 1990s and early 2000s when there's no mention of The Twilight Zone, The Outer Limits, or even the original Star Trek.

I suggest that the entire section, from "The television series Star Trek: The Next Generation..." to "a record later broken by Smallville" be removed, and instead a brief section be added to the article summarizing the history of science fiction on television, with a global perspective. A survey article like this shouldn't go into such specific details as naming particular direct-to-DVD Stargate films. (I do think that the "most successful sci-fi series" of all time deserves coverage beyond being an example of the time travel subgenre.)

I'm tempted to be bold and make this change right away, but it would probably be better to wait for some feedback from active editors of this page. Also, I'd like to work from good reliable sources instead of presenting what I assume to be "common knowledge" — can anyone recommend a particular source (perhaps a book) which presents a thorough overview of science fiction on television? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Space Western/Space frontier/Space Opera/Sci-FiWestern

I think these are different themes and do not need to be merged. People also substitute these with space Opera which I think is wrong. Space Western, Sci-Fi Western, Space Frontier, Sci-Fi opera are all different themes I have not examined these pages yet, but Space Western and Space Frontier keep getting tagged as unverified. I think the sources need to be discussed here before they are tagged. If a user has a problem with the sources and tags the article, it has to be debated first. I'd prefer to hit 2 targets with one stone so let's discuss here only 69.165.246.181 (talk) 23:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

You don't get to make up terms for an encyclopedia article. This is a field with a long history of very intelligent discussion, by fans, authors and (recently) academics, about themes and subgenres. I would particularly advise you, speaking as a subject-matter expert who was proud to call the originator of the term his friend, that you study the history and context of the term space opera much more closely than you have. And of course, it should go without saying that you should not used the deprecated pejorative "sci-fi" to discuss this literature. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not clear what the difference between "Space Western" and "Sci-Fi Western" would be. I'm not clear on what "Space Frontier" would be as a distinct subgenre; it's really more of a theme in my ears as so much SF would use frontier tropes. There are space westerns, but this is at best a very minor category, not of the significance or depth of the other subgenres listed. This shouldn't be a random laundry list; if smaller definable categories need discussion, another article and/or level of hierarchy could be appropriate. Avt tor (talk) 18:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

So they all go under space opera? That cannot be. 69.165.246.181 (talk) 00:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

It depends what the reliable sources say. The choice of themes should rely on scholarly sources; I don't think this is something that we can productively debate without reference to sources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

And of course I never said they all go under "space opera" (which would be absurd). These are terms of art, with specific meanings and shadings of meaning, some of them with deep roots in the field and in pop culture terminology. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Error in source name?

In a footnote, we have Science Fiction at Large (ed. Peter Nichols). I can't find a reference to this work (It doesn't come up in Amazon and Worldcat isn't working for me now). If the title is correct, my guess is that the editor is probably Peter Nicholls. Kdammers (talk) 10:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I have a copy; you're right that it's "Nicholls". You can see the bibliographic details here. I've fixed the spelling in the footnote. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

"The Force" as paranormal

@Nadirali: — Regarding this edit: It would be preferable to add citations at the same time you add new information. That way, it won't get reverted (at least not as fast). Also, you might want to consider introducing your topic further on in the article; the "Definition" section is more of an overview, and the list of paranormal abilities is pretty generic. Adding narrow specifics that don't apply to the field in general should come later. — Gorthian (talk) 03:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Gorthian OK I will add it. And just to point out, all those paranormal abilities are practiced by force users, but I'll add the citation as you wish, not just for that article, but also sections on The Force article. I don't think expanding information on The Force for a section in this article is a good idea because that's not what it's about. I was just adding The Force as an example, which is good enough and as you requested, I will cite it.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 05:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Space opera

@Taeyebaar: The term "space opera" has nothing to do with whether the fiction is "hard" or "soft". It is its own sub-genre. The name started out being pejorative—read the article Space opera—and the sentence you keep trying to move is not applicable to "soft" science fiction.— Gorthian (talk) 05:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

@Gorthian:, I did read it. You're the one who missed it. Check the article again, the subgenre can also be hard sci-fi or a mix of both. Examples and works are clearly given, so it is wrong to call it soft science fiction.--Taeyebaar (talk) 23:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

The sentence you moved is this one:

The term is sometimes used to describe improbable plots, absurd "science", and cardboard characters.

The term in that sentence means "space opera", not "soft science fiction". Yet you want to move that sentence from the "space opera" section to the "soft science fiction" section. Why?

Orphaned references in Science fiction

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Science fiction's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Hanson":

• From Sociology: Hanson, Barbara (2008). "Whither Qualitative/Quantitative?: Grounds for Methodological Convergence". Quality and Quantity. 42: 97–111. doi:10.1007/s11135-006-9041-7.
• From Technological singularity: Robin Hanson, "Economics Of The Singularity", IEEE Spectrum Special Report: The Singularity, retrieved 2008-09-11 & Long-Term Growth As A Sequence of Exponential Modes

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Definition

I think the Definition section needs a complete rewrite. I don't think it is possible to separate sf from fantasy. Although a few works of "pure" sf could probably be clearly distinguished from fantasy, almost ALL sf written today contains contradictions to many of the known Laws of Physics (eg conservation of momentum, conservation of energy, speed of light) as well as being self-contradictory. I don't think it is USEFUL to use quotes from 40 or more years ago Knight?? to define the genre today. To my best understanding, the biggest difference between sf and (other) fantasy is that (most) sf avoids the use of (existence of) "personal" magic (Supernatural effects created by the mind, speech, writings, or gestures of a person (or animal)) AND attempts to apply any new/different physics consistently to the whole world/universe. Nanotechnology is a good example of sf. Virtually ALL nt written about today violates conservation of mass, energy, momentum Laws in a very physically inconsistent way (no waste heat generated when work is done, mass created from nothing, microscopic nanobots can create huge structures in seconds, etc.) and yet such a book would be labeled sf. Abitslow (talk) 22:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

There are good sources for this; the SFE entry is one. They regard Knight's definition as worth mentioning, as it happens. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Re: Abitslow, I think a term that will help here is "science fantasy." Literary scholar Carl D. Malmgren explains that this is an “unstable hybrid form” and an “oxymoronic form” that combines the imaginary/actual, the magical/prosaic, and the mythical/scientific. See "Towards a Definition of Science Fantasy" (Science-Fiction Studies, Vol. 15, 1988, pp. 259–281, pp. 260, 274). Rockabillies (talk) 11:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Maxwell, one of the greatest of all physicists, invented a hypothetical nanotechnology now known as Maxwell's demon, although he spelt it 'daemon'. That's the one that can defy thermodynamic entropy in a gas by being using a molecule size door to sort fast and slow molecules from one side to the other. It was a conjecture, like Schrödinger's Cat, but it has been used in fantasy as the source of the warmth of Hell.
DaveyHume (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Science Fiction (and even fantasy) by Professional Scientists

Fred Hoyle and Carl Sagan wrote very carefully scientific fiction. Isaac Asimov also was a professor of biology, and a prolific writer of more than science fiction.
Hoyle in particular had at least four novels, one of them a BBC TV series, that strictly eschewed the notion of faster-than-light travel or communication. I suspect that all of them violated the now established existence of what Hoyle called the Big Bang, which he found incredible and had devised an alternative theory. Perhaps the most radically plausible departure from prevailing popular scientific understanding was fictional experimentation with non-chemical living intelligences, starting with "The Black Cloud".
Hoyle also produced a collection of short fantasy and science fiction stories, the fantasy usually involving ancient mythology. DaveyHume (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

How is this relevant here? If you think some important info is missing from the article please say so explicitly. --Fixuture (talk) 18:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

"Paranormal" section

@NadirAli: I reverted your edit because you removed a cited source and inserted a different source, with no explanation or discussion. Was there a reason you could not leave that source in place and add the new one? — Gorthian (talk) 22:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@Gorthian:, I did it because it's a better source. The other one is good too, but this is much better and more to the point. Besides, I have other use for the previous source. I think you should make a little more effort to investigate others edits first before reverting. If you are uncertain, you are free to ask. But remember, not every edit on Wikipedia requires a discussion, otherwise it'll take forever to edit one's way through.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 03:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Since I'm unfamiliar with either source, checking them wasn't an option. It would have been clearer what you were doing if you just noted in your edit summary something like, "replacing with a better source." That's all I was asking for. — Gorthian (talk) 04:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

@Gorthian:, if you have any questions about my edits, you are always free to ask.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 06:00, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Repairing "Other sub-genres"

Some of these sub-genres are not sufficiently differentiated to include in the list. Specifically, Steampunk and Dieselpunk. I suggest Dieselpunk be mentioned under Steampunk, since the latter is the more common label. User talk:Hookandloop

To editor Hookandloop:, I agree. Derivatives should not be listed there, just we need to add the main subgenre and put a link to diriviates , like what I did with cyberpunk on the article.--Taeyebar 01:13, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Link to American Science Fiction is recursive?

Does anyone know where it is supposed to be linked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.45.202 (talk) 21:12, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Which link? In the [examples] section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hookandloop (talk • contribs) 22:45, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes in the World-wide examples section. The link to American science fiction just redirects to the same article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.45.202 (talk) 18:19, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

So I guess this is intended? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.45.202 (talk) 19:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

When the article American science fiction was created back in 2014, it was intended to be a separate article. Being set up as a redirect (back to here) was supposed to be a temporary measure until the article was written. But, the article hasn't been written yet, so it has remained a redirect. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Science fiction subgenre drafts

Please contribute to these article drafts Maritime science fiction and List of maritime science fiction works--Taeyebar 17:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Is alternate history really a subgenre?

Alternate history seems to be just another fiction. Some other history that is not ours would be considered fiction, but is the scientific setting really different?--Taeyebar 18:04, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I doubt that logic, whether scientific or otherwise, will be helpful in delineating genres or sub-genres. Alternate History is a genre (or, if you prefer, a sub-genre) simply because mainstream belief holds it to be so. But I suspect you are really asking whether Alternate History is properly viewed as a sub-genre of Science Fiction. To my eyes, much of it isn't Science Fiction. Nor would I classify much of it as Fantasy, either. But it doesn't matter what you or I might think. The Science Fiction and Fantasy communities have adopted Alternate History as a type of fiction that is closely related to theirs. I suppose there can be a reasonable debate as to whether it should be viewed as a sub-genre of Science Fiction or as a sub-genre of the broader field of Speculative Fiction. But either way, mainstream belief holds it to be a unique form of fiction that can be classified somewhere close to (if not actually within) the field of Science Fiction. NewYorkActuary (talk) 10:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• Science fiction is the fiction that takes its concepts from science. And science is not limited to natural sciences. History is a science too. If social science fiction and dystopia, which are based on social sciences, count as subgenres, then alternate history totally counts. Beaumain (talk) 14:13, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

@Beaumain: That's just one of many Definitions of science fiction. And declaring "history a science" is a very squishy, controversial assertion as well: maybe the study of history can be considered a science - but there's no certainty there and alternate history is not really or at least necessarily related to the study of history.

Imo alternate history can be a subgenre of science fiction - but doesn't have to. However I couldn't say where I'd draw the line between what of it would be part of science fiction and what wouldn't though. I think it depends on one's definition of science fiction and the wealth of detail of the work's impact assessment. --Fixuture (talk) 17:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

What matters is what the sources say, not any editors personal opinions. Do any reliable sources say alternate history is a sub-genre of science fiction? Robynthehode (talk) 09:18, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

They do. [4] [5] [6].Beaumain (talk) 09:14, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

And references in one of the above. Also D. Suvin, a leading SF theoretician, e.g., Victorian Science Fiction, 1871-85: The Rise of the Alternative History Sub-Genre (La science-fiction victorienne, 1871-1885: l'émergence du sous-genre de l'uchronie …

D Suvin - Science Fiction Studies, 1983 - JSTOR

Darko Suvin. La science-fiction victorienne, 1871-1885: l'émergence du sous-genre de l'uchronie.-L'année 1871 marque un soudain développement de la SF au Royaume-Uni, ouvrant une période de l'histoire du genre qui s' étend, selon les points de vue qu'on adopte, Kdammers (talk) 10:28, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I think alternate history is a genre of speculative fiction.Because alternate history is not about non-existent technology.Alternate history is about "what if" scenario.Not all alternate hisotry works are not about fictional technology.So that's why alternate history is a genre of speculative fiction. luaza1313 (talk) 08:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@Luaza1313: Agree - it's probably best described as such. Have you found any sources saying so? I guess it's one of the few cases where the "speculative fiction" genre classification is actually useful and appropriate. --Fixuture (talk) 16:07, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

At this moment it looks like most sources provided tend to include AI into SF. It means that, at very least, the article has to say there are two points of view on the topic - granted that sources for the other POV are provided. Beaumain (talk) 16:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Speculative fiction how? If there was a story about Hitler winning WWII, would the science be any different? --Taeyebar 08:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

It depends on what you consider a science. Only physics, math, and biology? Cause historical science, and social sciences in general, would definitely be very different. Beaumain (talk) 16:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I think alternate history is just another fiction. That's all.--Taeyebar 08:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Science fiction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.loa.org/sciencefiction/introduction.jsp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130222194108/https://www.sigmaforum.org/members.php to http://www.sigmaforum.org/members.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080518203009/http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6548135.html to http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6548135.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070128073859/https://www.laconiv.org/2006/prog/contest.htm to http://www.laconiv.org/2006/prog/contest.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131212054315/http://www.list.or.kr/articles/article_view.htm?Div1=5&Idx=194 to http://www.list.or.kr/articles/article_view.htm?Div1=5&Idx=194
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131113171833/http://www.list.or.kr/articles/article_view.htm?Div1=8&Idx=1144 to http://www.list.or.kr/articles/article_view.htm?Div1=8&Idx=1144
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131212054309/http://www.list.or.kr/articles/article_view.htm?Div1=1&Idx=294 to http://www.list.or.kr/articles/article_view.htm?Div1=1&Idx=294
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131212054312/http://www.list.or.kr/articles/article_view.htm?Div1=13&Idx=1134 to http://www.list.or.kr/articles/article_view.htm?Div1=13&Idx=1134
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070202075121/https://www.baen.com/intweis.htm to http://www.baen.com/intweis.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070115234313/https://www.aeonmagazine.com/writersguidelines.html to http://www.aeonmagazine.com/writersguidelines.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070619211005/https://home.istar.ca/~delric/Myth.htm to http://home.istar.ca/~delric/Myth.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080430072534/http://www.perry-rhodan-usa.com/web1998/rdnpres.htm to http://www.perry-rhodan-usa.com/web1998/rdnpres.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.nvcc.edu/home/ataormina/scifi/history/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061223120718/http://www.noreascon.org/users/sflovers/u1/web/ to http://www.noreascon.org/users/sflovers/u1/web/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Science in sciencefiction

@NewYorkActuary: @User17625: Being somewhat of an SF-fan, I rather side with User17625 description. Wormholes, for instance, are in line with General Relativity. Creating, or even finding one is pure science fiction, but that's the point. Good SF (Asomov, A.C. Clark) extrapolates science, but does not flatly contradict it. The fans would not stand for it. Kleuske (talk) 00:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Unexplained additions or inappropriate use of this article

At 07:33:42‎ on 2016-09-13 user NadirAli added a link to an image file at the very top of this article. The file was: BrainCloud-and-scientist_mango_concept-art_04.png and contained the caption:

"Artwork by David Revoy for the preproduction of the fourth open movie of the Blender Foundation, 'Tears of Steel' (project Mango)."

While the scene depicted in the image definitely had a strong Science Fiction flavor to it, the Edit Summary comment for that version of this article contained no explanation as to why the image was added to this article(it was, in fact, a blank comment), and no text was ever added to this article referencing the image or explaining it's presence in this article. A Random image shouldn't be added to this article merely because it contains a scene or depicts materials of a science fiction nature, *unless* it is captioned with text explaining that it is being used as an example to depict a theme, technology, situation, trope, etc, etc, that is commonly used or seen in science fiction. Or that the image is included to further enhance or explain a section of this article and that the section in question references the image. The image should be germane to the section it which it is included. Furthermore, this image's particularly prominent position at the very top of the article requires that it should be an image that carries a very strong and unambiguous connection with the concept of Science Fiction in general. This particular image did not. In fact, the image that was added appeared to have been done so solely to promote or advertise a particular film or imaging technique or process. As such, the image's inclusion in this article is completely inappropriate and I plan to remove it in a few days unless someone can provide a very good reason for keeping it. Gcronau (talk) 14:03, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

It's standard in Wikipedia to have an image at the top of the article as an exemplar of the concept the article is about. The image is open source, and the organization developing the tool is a non profit, and the tool is also open source, so I'm unworried about promotional aspects. But if you want to replace it with a different, better image, that's fine with me at least. But I don't think you should remove it unless you have a replacement. What do others think? What other image could we use?GliderMaven (talk) 14:35, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• I'm glad somebody started this discussion. I noticed the addition a few months back and didn't think it was an improvement. But my concern is not that the image is promoting the organization. Instead, it's that the image isn't very good. Frankly, I think it's kind of ugly, though I readily acknowledge that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". I'm also not comfortable with having the article's first two images both being artwork by the same Wikipedia editor (the second image is in the "Definitions" section). Instead of anointing a particular editor as the article's official illustrator, why not go with public-domain illustrations from classic works, such as is done later in the article. If people want to take this approach, I'll be happy to ramble through the Commons and come back with some suggestions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
• To editor Gcronau:, To editor GliderMaven:, To editor NewYorkActuary:, I understand your concerns regarding the quality of the image. I have found two excellent quality public domain sci-fi art images which I intend to add to the article and replace the current lead image. However, I'm currently topic banned from uploading anything onto the English Wikipedia and that ban was extended to linking anything I uploaded to commons. Give me a few weeks to have this topic banned revoked and then I will add them. Until then I would request that the current image be left there for the time being as it's only temporary. I will message you when I have added them for review.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 20:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

• I just came to the talk page to bring up the same question. How about a cover from a recognized Sci-fi classic (in public domain)? I will go ahead and give this a try.PopSci (talk) 18:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
• That should do for the time being until I can get up the better image. But wait till I have my tban revoked--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 04:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  • There seems to be lots of room for more pictures. PopSci (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
• Once I add the great quality pics, people won't care how much room there is.;-)-NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 03:57, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Changes

I've been making some changes, but mostly just for style. I haven't been adding material, or taking out very much. Please let me know, or just change things back, if anyone disagrees. PopSci (talk) 20:13, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Merger Discussion

There is another article Sense of wonder which is about an important aspect of science fiction. I'm suggesting that it be merged here so that readers interested in science fiction would be able to read it here. There is also an article Wonder (emotion) on the general topic of wonder. PopSci (talk) 04:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I withdrew my suggestion. There is too much material in the other article. I'm going to put a brief summary in a new section here and provide a link to the other article.PopSci (talk) 10:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Christian science fiction

There is an article on Christian science fiction. Would there be a problem adding it to the list of sub-genres? PopSci (talk) 17:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Or perhaps in the related genres section, since a lot of it is not really science fiction.PopSci (talk) 16:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Future history?

There is an article Future history, but it is really an essay and mostly unsourced. Should we mention and link it somewhere in this article? PopSci (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I added it to the characteristics of SF. Its own article is not quite good enough for it to have its own section here. (More than half of it is taken up by a nerdy discussion of real history overtaking fictional future histories.)PopSci (talk) 15:51, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Supernatural fiction

I'm removing this, put it back if you disagree. Its own article Supernatural fiction is very short and is tagged for lack of sources. Also it does not really seem to be its own genre, but a label put on several of the genres that already have their own sections. PopSci (talk) 22:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Influence

How about a section on the influence of science fiction on culture and society?WildWookiee (talk) 05:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Good idea. I started that by combining some material that was already in the article.PopSci (talk) 14:37, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

New section for film and TV

The history section is mainly focused on books. What do you think of a subsection of that for the history of SF in film and TV?WildWookiee (talk) 16:48, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. There could be a lot more information added. Also many more people watch science fiction movies and TV shows than read books.PopSci (talk) 17:17, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I will give it a start.WildWookiee (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Video games?

There are a few mentions of video games in the article. Should we have a section for them? I'm kind of reluctant since I'm sure every aspect or subgenre of SF has at least one video game. To me they are not "fiction" and probably shouldn't be in the article at all, but I'm kind of old-school. PopSci (talk) 15:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I share your feelings. There could be one sentence that says: "Many video games have science fiction themes." And leave it at that. But if people want it I would be happy to set up a subsection for them, right under the Film and TV sections, no problem.WildWookiee (talk) 15:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

We could keep going and add comic books (we probably should do this one), then art, music, fashion design....who knows? PopSci (talk) 16:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Even religion. There are UFO religions. PopSci (talk) 04:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• The goal of the article should be that when someone finishes reading it he or she picks up a SF book and starts reading.  ;-) -PopSci (talk) 04:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Scholarship before fandom?

That would make sense to me. I'm going to give it a try. PopSci (talk) 22:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Science fiction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090703073608/http://www.startrek.com/custom/include/feature/intro/timeline_future.html to http://www.startrek.com/custom/include/feature/intro/timeline_future.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061031110802/https://www.hermenaut.com/a4.shtml to http://www.hermenaut.com/a4.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060627190020/http://www.worldwideschool.org/library/books/lit/horror/TheWorksofEdgarAllenPoeVolume1/chap3.html to http://www.worldwideschool.org/library/books/lit/horror/TheWorksofEdgarAllenPoeVolume1/chap3.html
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5kwqw46wy?url=http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761563123_2/Science_Fiction.html to http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761563123_2/Science_Fiction.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110202162530/http://www.empsfm.org/ to http://www.empsfm.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Subgenres

I am concerned that the increase (seemingly) in subgenres may include original research by editors rather than being correctly cited from reliable sources. I don't have time at the moment to check all the subgenres and their sources to see that the sources explicitly state the name of the subgenre. If no explicit subgenre name is available and defined that the subgenre should not exist in this article. Just a concern. I will most likely, due to time pressures, depend on other editors to do this checking but thought I would flag up my concern. Thanks Robynthehode (talk) 14:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I have recently taken off a few and combined some others. It might be possible to split off the whole list to a new article, if people think the whole thing takes up too much space (and reader attention) here. I am not sure how I would vote on that.PopSci (talk) 16:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I think the first thing to do is to check all the subgenres to see if they are sourced correctly (a reliable third party has actually used these subgenre terms and the terms and any description of the subgenre is deemed notable enough). If not they should be removed. The article is long and creating a separate subgenre article may be the only way to keep it manageable. After all most people coming to the article will be served with information about 'hard' and 'soft' science fiction and the related SF section. Then further reading would be available via a link to a subgenre article.Robynthehode (talk) 17:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I looked it over and the simplest thing to do would be to delete the whole "related genres" section. Speculative fiction is linked in the first sentence of the article and that is really where this material should be listed. I also added its template which provides the links.PopSci (talk) 17:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to do that now. PopSci (talk) 21:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• I'm suggesting taking out the Other subgenres section: "Kaiju" genre of films which are only kind of SF. "Science fiction opera" main article has an impressive list but doesn't really establish that this is a notable topic. "Science fiction action films" Main article is only a list. Of course this is super-important since most recent "SF" films are really this. The article would probably be better with a section on SF movies, rather than this paragraph. "Science-fiction poetry" Main article link redirects to Speculative poetry. Interesting but does not seem like a major topic of interest. If you disagree with any of this please consider moving items up to the main list of subgenres rather than having this subsection for "second class" items. It seems. PopSci (talk) 02:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I understand the above concern, but there are certain methods to go about this. Another thing that concerns me is that relevant information is being scratched out. User:PopSci, a lot of information you removed was relevant while adding a lot of irrelevant information. Related topics like fantasy should be included to give information of what and what is not comparable to science fiction. If you are doing this in search of something to do, I suggest you go about this slowly and carefully. I agree with your above concerns. But there's enough of subgenres and we don't need anymore. I have never hear or read of a subgenre or topic "feminist science fiction". It seems to be more of a description rather than any subgenre. "Science-fiction poetry " "Science fiction action films" "Science fiction opera" can be removed if you wish. I have no objection.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 04:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I am not saying I'm right. I would like to have more editors join in the discussion, if they want to.PopSci (talk) 06:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:PRESERVE, I prefer incremental improvements over scraping sections, unless there is really no chance of getting any encyclopedic content from the existing text. PopSci noted an existing problem, so we can now all work on it, even if it's going to take a lot of work. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 15:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

As I said before, it's really a matter of taste and opinion, not absolute right and wrong. The article could be very short and just give the history of SF, or it could be 10 times as long as it is now, or anywhere in between.PopSci (talk) 18:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

We can have most opinions, but we can create relevant sections for them, otherwise relevant articles or lists.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 19:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Right now the article is about 70-80% lists.2601:640:F:543B:28AB:2AAE:3184:FE1F (talk) 00:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

The topic itself is not as simple as, well, I thought it was. Perhaps there could be a section on the general appeal, importance, etc. of science fiction in general.PopSci (talk) 01:38, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

The "innovation" section could be expanded, shouldn't be too hard to find sources.PopSci (talk) 05:10, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I would vote for the article having more information, rather than less information.WildWookiee (talk) 12:58, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• In most articles the lists are at the end.73.170.223.31 (talk) 21:14, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

That would be a long way down. I think we should at least keep the list of subgenres closer to the top since that is an important topic of interest to many readers, I am sure.PopSci (talk) 05:30, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• I've removed some of the minor items, mostly following suggestions in this thread. PopSci (talk) 01:59, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Steampunk

Steampunk, although I am not an expert on it, seems to be as much an artistic and cultural movement as a genre of literature. SF itself has these same aspects (for instance art and fashion) but we don't go into those in this article. Since we are not talking about those aspects of SF here should we even have a section for Steampunk?PopSci (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I would say leave it for now. Some of the other minor subgenres have been removed, merged, or moved to other sections. That seems to take care of most of the objections that the lists were too long. Certainly there is a lot of interest in steampunk and it doesn't hurt anyone to have it here, although I understand your point.WildWookiee (talk) 15:12, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Comic SF

I had been thinking about a section for Comic science fiction. One problem is that the "main article" is so poor. (I have just redirected it to List of comic science fiction - which I also added to the See Also section here- but that might not hold up.) Another is that, well, there is comedy about just about everything so how is comic SF so remarkable? Also bookstores do not have a separate section for comic SF. There are some good examples, probably Discworld being the most famous. Besides a lot of space opera is really comedy. Certainly the original Star Wars movies had a lot of comedy, even Star Trek.PopSci (talk) 16:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Space Western

I took out Space Western from the list of sub-genres. It is really very minor. Check out its article and you can see how few examples there really are.2601:648:8000:9CF0:948B:4333:15D4:C385 (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

An alternative would be to merge with space opera.PopSci (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

It certainly does not look "minor" and has extensive coverage. What on Earth made you think it's the same as space opera?

Superhuman and time travel can go in another section. There's nothing in them to indicate they actually are genres. Perhaps a section on related topics should be created to place and discuss them in. Mind you I don't mean the related genres section.

Massive image changes

Why was this done? It looks quite de-graded. Many explanatory images that were added have now been removed and added with bad quality, mostly recycled images, also in a "decorative" magazine style. For what reason has this been done?--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

About the magazine image in the definitions section, if you're not comfortable with it, I will re-locate it, but please do not add irrelevant material; especially when it does not reflect the subject. Please continue making changes but these newer images replacing more relevant ones should not be done as discussed by guidelines.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 17:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Mostly I was using public domain images that I thought would be of interest to readers. Of course the whole thing's a matter of opinion and taste.PopSci (talk) 23:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

That's fine, but these are not relevant to the subject. Put horror images in horror articles, put images of related topics in their respective articles. Another thing is that images used for explanatory purposes were removed/relocated. Just have a little patience. I have selected good quality, un-used images to use for this article, but I'll need a few weeks to be approved to add them. We can discuss it after I upload them.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 01:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I guess I like the "decorative magazine" style. Anyway I will not make any changes to the pictures right now. I have expressed my preferences. I agree that it would be good for some other editors to express theirs. PopSci (talk) 15:48, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Would you object if I put back the cover of "Brave New World" as an illustration for the "As serious literature" section? PopSci (talk) 17:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

If no objections I will put it back.PopSci (talk) 12:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

• To me the pictures of Wells and Verne in the history section are kind of clunky. As important as the two authors certainly are most readers of this article are probably not so interested in what they looked like. Anyone object if I take them out while we wait for a consensus on what we want to add? PopSci (talk) 17:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

When we discuss the works and who they originated with, it is relevant. I am still intending on replacing the lead with better quality images, but looks like I still have a little while more to go. If the lead image is your favorite regarding this topic on the grand scale, then leave it for now.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 23:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the two pictures are relevant to the text, and also in the public domain which is a good thing.PopSci (talk) 21:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• I'm warming up to the "Imagination Magazine" picture which predicts the Moon missions. Any objections if I put back the Mark Twain picture for time travel? A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's CourtPopSci (talk) 02:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I've followed NadirAli's suggestion and put in some more pictures of authors where they are mentioned. This seems to work best in the international section since that is about the diversity of authors.PopSci (talk) 05:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

And if we are going to have one author honored in the history section, H.G. Wells seems like a good choice to me. It also gives some seriousness to that section.PopSci (talk) 04:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm happy with the pictures now, hope everybody is too.PopSci (talk) 05:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Utopian and dystopian fiction

These are not necessarily science fiction. They simply indicate positive/negative aspects of society which may or may not occur in a science fiction. I'd recommend a search for them so people can see for themselves. I'll even add a list of examples in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Posuydon (talk • contribs) 23:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The links I added to the section of this subject are: List of dystopian literature and List of utopian literature. Skimming through them you'll notice that most of these are not science fiction; therefor it is not appropriate to list U&D fiction as a "subgenre" of sci-fi.

You could be right. I would not object to moving them to the "related genres" section.PopSci (talk) 02:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• I said before that the classification of genres, subgenres, and related genres is more a matter of opinion than of definite, what shall I say? okay, science. I don't have any personal objections to how it is now, the important information is there no matter how people shift around the listed itemsPopSci (talk) 02:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand why there are two sections, one of "Subgenres" and one for "Other subgenres." Why not just one list, either in alphabetical order or in order of importance.WildWookiee (talk) 12:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't see the logic either. Before the items in Other subgenres did not have headings and "main article" links. Now they are formatted the same as the main list. I would vote to merge the lists.PopSci (talk) 05:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Time travel and superhuman

I suggested in a previous thread that these to topics be placed in a new section called "related topics". There's nothing in these two sections and their "main articles" to suggest that they constitute genres. They seem more like topics related to science fiction, but not "subgenres". Mind you I don't refer to the "related genres" section to place them in as there's nothing here to indicate that they are indeed genres, just topics related to science fiction and it's main family tree, speculative fiction (which science fiction is a branch of as stated in the intro) I'd appreciate some feedback while I'm away for the time being. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Posuydon (talk • contribs) 22:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Both time travel and enhanced humans are mentioned as (possible) characteristics of SF in that section. Does everything in speculative fiction need its own section in this article? PopSci (talk) 05:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and reduced them to items in the "See also" list at the end. As I said in my edit summary, I have never heard of a WP article having a "See also" section within the article itself.PopSci (talk) 13:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Move lists to end of article

Someone suggested earlier to move the sub-genres and related genres lists to the end of the article. That makes more sense to me, both because it slow down readers and it might send them off to other articles before they had finished this one.WildWookiee (talk) 16:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Also there would be more space for more complete lists.WildWookiee (talk) 16:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Possible. But leave the list of characteristics and the info on hard and soft SF where they are now.PopSci (talk) 17:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree.WildWookiee (talk) 01:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Historical fiction

Here is a source which says that Historical fiction and SF are related genres: Future Perfect: American Science Fiction of the Nineteenth Century: An Anthology, Howard Bruce Franklin, Rutgers University Press, 1995, pages 7-8 PopSci (talk) 13:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I just ordered the book on Amazon. $5.99 used with free shipping. Lots of used ones offered. PopSci (talk) 13:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The book was kind of a disappointment. Lots of stories were included that did not really seem to be SF and the editor had a lot to say and an obviously political agenda.PopSci (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

General suggestion

@PopSci When making such a large series of edits, especially when you are removing content it is a good idea to apply the Template:In_use template. It helps those of us checking the recent changes page to not jump all over large changes. :) Zchrykng (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't know about that.PopSci (talk) 18:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Genres eg Libertarian science fiction

Even though this has an article is it really a sub-genre of SF? Other political ideologies do not and they are also sometimes expressed in SF stories. Does that really create a sub-genre? Should we have "communist SF", "socialist SF", "democratic SF", etc?PopSci (talk) 02:31, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed it. Its article was really about the relationship between SF and libertarianism. While interesting it did not establish that there was really a sub-genre. How about a section on politics and SF?PopSci (talk) 02:41, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Maybe give some examples. 00Kelvin (talk) 18:00, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Possible I guess. There is an article on Political ideas in science fiction.PopSci (talk) 00:32, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I find the sub genre discussions confusing. Is there a taxonomy this is based on? There are also seems to he confusion about SF by a culture and about a culture Wakelamp (talk) 15:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I find it confusing too. We could probably list 10 times as many subgenres as we have now. PopSci (talk) 20:59, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank-you Popsci has inspired me :-) The current article is very very hard to read and way too long especially the sub genres.

The introduction's classification doesn't match with the sub genres, some sub-genres are very small (cli-fi), mundane seems to be a sub sub genre, Alternate history is classified as a related genre but we have steampunk and diesel punk as a sub genre, some are not sub genres but presentations ( Opera, films), some are not precise or too precise(Star Wars is both a Space Western and a space opera), we keep on getting requests for new ones, Some are cultures (Black science fiction), we also have hard and soft science fiction as a category but we don't explain how they link to subgenre. So I looked around to find some taxonomies Amazon has one Amazon and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Science_fiction_genres and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Science_fiction_by_genre and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_science_fiction. Wakelamp (talk) 13:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

found another list in wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_writing_genres Wakelamp (talk) 14:01, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Amazon's list is interesting, but it's probably not a reliable source. Is there some kind of respected encyclopedia of SF? PopSci (talk) 16:14, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Moving Steam and diesel punk to related genres list since that seems to be your suggestion.PopSci (talk) 16:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

BTW the "hard" and "soft" dichotomy is probably kind of outdated. There is certainly Hard science fiction. But to say that all the rest is "soft" doesn't mean very much, especially when that is probably 90% of the total. Star Trek has always been soft, although it is serious SF. Things like The Matrix, Star Wars, etc. much softer by far.PopSci (talk) 16:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I contacted the encyclopedia of science fiction and I have changed my mind :-). There is no way we can come up with a classification system that will satisfy everyone, without giving undue weight to minor genres, and leaving a big bucket of other. The current article is not approachable because of its many classification schemes (Characteristics, hard and soft science fiction, Influence - poets literature, sub genres, related genres and World wide example) So my suggestion is that we scoot out all the classifiation sections except ironically the Classification section similar to the WIki Literature page Wakelamp (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I wonder if all the classification and sub-classification isn't of more interest to people who already know a lot about SF. General readers probably would want more of an overview of what SF is and why it is interesting and important.PopSci (talk) 22:18, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree totally about the classification as being too detailed for a general reader and of low interest and I think is one of the reasons for structure issue. It was pointed out to me that the outline of science fiction page does this classification marvellously. My preference would now be to extract this the genre/sub-genre information out totally.Wakelamp (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

But people are interested in genres and sub-genres.PopSci (talk) 06:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

People are interested, but I think high-level articles should be roadmaps, not detailed instructions. What do you think? Overall the article is hard to dip into as there is so much information and so many authors mentioned Wakelamp (talk) 14:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I will work on trimming down some of the embedded lists of authors.WildWookiee (talk) 11:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you. However, my experience on WP is that it is very hard to take something out of an article. Especially if it's about someone's favourite author or movie.PopSci (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

You have way more experience than me as I mainly wiki gnome about. DO you think stepping the class of SF up one notch is possible by making the article more approachable/stop the genre wars and defeat the favourite author hordes? I looked at Comics, which seems to be a simpler article with fan interest and they seem to control it better, but there seems to be some very strong opinions Wakelamp (talk) 22:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Comics is a good article. The topics are not really the same thing, since comics is a medium and SF is, well, a cultural (whatever) that is expressed through different media. PopSci (talk) 05:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• I would be okay with subgenres and related genres being bullet point lists, like see also. But I think space opera needs to be explained more clearly in the article itself. Others, like military SF and gothic SF are obvious and interested readers can follow the link.PopSci (talk) 16:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead and did this with the related genres. Maybe the sub-genres need more explanation. WildWookiee (talk) 17:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• Aside: I like the article now. I also consider the "Sense of Wonder" section to be the "breaking point" where general readers will stop and hard-core fans will keep going.  :-) PopSci (talk) 14:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I would like to do some changes to the definition section. I checked the SF encylopedia and the Hugo award site ("Basically anything published in the correct year that the voters think is either science fiction or fantasy"). So what about this

boxed [d]efinitions of science fiction are not so much a series of logical approximations to an elusive ideal, as a small, parasitic subgenre in themselves." Parrinder, Patrick (1980). Science Fiction: Its Criticism and Teaching. London: New Accents.

in 1926 , in what is considered the "pulp era" Amazing Stories magazine suggested SF was "a charming romance intermingled with scientific fact and prophetic vision... Not only do these amazing tales make tremendously interesting reading—they are always instructive. They supply knowledge... in a very palatable form"[3][4], In the "golden age, the instructive and romantic was not enough. Stories were that if they were to "contain a miracle, it ought at least not to contain a whole arsenal of them.", " the reaction of human beings to changes in science and technology"[Asimov] was important, as was a thorough understanding of the nature and significance of the scientific method."[Heinlien], and Galaxy magazines Focus on "not on the adventurer, the inventor, the engineer, or the scientist, but on the average citizen,"[Gunn, James. "Alternate Worlds: 1949–1965", in Alternate Worlds. The Illustrated History of Science Fiction (N.J.:Prentice-Hall, 1975) - stolen from New Wave article]

The "New wave" of the 1960s and 1970 expanded on the Galaxy definition, Now "there are no easily delineated limits to science fiction." {ldR], and now "the one field that reached out and embraced every sector of the human imagination, every endeavor, every idea, every technological development, and every dream." (bradbury 1974)

Thanks. Very interesting. Some of this could be mentioned in the history section as well. PopSci (talk) 16:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks PopSci. I tried to take the various definitions and put them in a historial order. Are people happy for something like my suggestion to replace the definition section? Also does have is there any idea what SF after New Wave is called? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_fiction gives sugges Aftrmath or Modern. (BTW how do I send thanks ?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wakelamp (talk • contribs) 01:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Give it a try and see what it looks like in the article.PopSci (talk) 04:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Suggested changes are now done ( sorry for the delay got busy with real life ! Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 10:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to taking out the whole "Definition" section if it's confusing to readers. The next section, "Characteristics", gives a more concise picture of what SF is. PopSci (talk) 11:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I wish to combine this section with the cunning plan section. What do people think Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 17:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

History - television

What changes do people want to this section Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 12:41, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

History

A possible suggestion is to mention world events that had an impact on SF. For instance the end of World War Two including the atom bomb, the exposure of the Holocaust, and establishment of the United Nations. The flying saucer craze of the 1950s. Sputnik and the space race and Apollo. The Vietnam War and the popularity of drugs. The fall of the USSR and (for most people) of Marxist theories of the future. The Internet and the information revolution. I personally like the way the section is now with readers' knowledge of these things being assumed.PopSci (talk) 18:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Community

What changes do people want to this section Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 12:42, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Trim some of the unsourced material.PopSci (talk) 18:35, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Characteristics - elements

What changes do people want to this section Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 12:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I like this section as it is. Other elements can be added of course.PopSci (talk) 18:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Genres and "White space issue"

Look if we need more white space to avoid WP:CLUTTER so be it. Spacing out and intersecting sections and subsections if needed only improves the qualify of the articles, not deteriorates it.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 04:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

This is not a problem on my computer. I use Chrome and have a 24" monitor. PopSci (talk) 05:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Some of the content removed from the "Hard and Soft SF" section might migrate back there. Social SF and anthropological SF seem to be about the same concept as Soft SF, of course not exactly the same thing. Same with mundane SF, and even maybe military SF, and hard SF. This would have the side-effect of giving more space for the two pictures, which are very relevant to the material and interesting for readers. PopSci (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

To editor PopSci:, no that was specifically about social science fiction, it should go there. No they are not the same concept. I don't see how Frankenstein becomes social or anthropological science fiction. It states it is often treated as a subset of soft science fiction. You cannot simply ignore that and edit it in. You should be familiarized and read carefully on the topics before making these massive changes. Someone has already adjusted the images, so I say leave them as it's in a perfect positioning.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 03:01, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

To respond to your other question. Frankenstein is social science fiction in the sense that it is partly about society's response to scientific innovation.PopSci (talk) 15:04, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

NadirAli نادر علی The whole genre thing is really really tricky, but the hard and soft dichotomy is even worse as good (POV :-)) books tend to have both, plus cultural overtones and the views of the writers times AND then we have how we interpret it now AND through what lens. The wiki for Frankenstein has the following interpretations from a quick look- science, womanly fantasy, psychoanalytic, obsessiveness of science, innocence, mobs....etc. A famous Hard SF book is Mission_OF_gravity, but the criticism of it seems to be on the lack of characterisation, some mistakes in science and I have read elsewhere or (just thought it??) the treating of the indigenous peoples as having to be taught science slowly. What is today's Hard_science_fiction also can get outdated by later discoveries as Frankenstein is not in the current wikipedia list. So I can't see a solution that makes people happy :-). I am also wary of examples in this area, because people's POV and the lack of clear rules can cause arguments. Still not sure what to do Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 03:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree that they are not the same thing. However the article now says that social SF is often "placed within" soft SF. Some other editors have also expressed the feeling that the lists of subgenres and related genres could be shortened a bit.PopSci (talk) 12:56, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Soft science fiction has also got a derogatory factor from wiki "Soft science fiction, or soft SF, is a category of science fiction with two different definitions. It either (1) explores the "soft" sciences, and especially the social sciences (for example, anthropology, sociology, or psychology), rather than engineering or the "hard" sciences (for example, physics, astronomy, or chemistry), or (2) is not scientifically accurate."" Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 03:17, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• Does anyone have suggestions for items that should be taken off the subgenres and related genres lists?PopSci (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The section on hard and soft science fiction could be moved up to the characteristics section, or next to it. These are not really sub-genres, but characteristics of different kinds of science fiction. I will go ahead and try this, if anyone objects they can undo. WildWookiee (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I just did that and I hope it helps. Otherwise I don't really see the need to take out items from the sub-genres list. Obviously some people think they are important or they would not have articles of their own. I think spy fiction and mystery fiction could be taken out of the related genres list. I don't see them as having a lot of SF connection.WildWookiee (talk) 16:56, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I say leave it for now. Whatever the case is, I don't see any reason for equating one with the other. If they have distinct article of their own, they should not be mindlessly merged and that goes for every topic on Wikipedia. So to back to the beginning of the discussion if topics have their own articles with sources, clearly establishing related but separate topics. That is enough reason to leave them and every topic apart, unless they are used ambiguously but mean the same thing. If we mix them up, it'll become more confusing, so there less mass moving, the better. I also do not believe this is a topic worth over-focusing on. It's not worth obsessing over. Leave it for now and focus on other things needing improvement. It still only takes up a small fraction of the article so why should I or anyone else be worried?--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 03:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

"A famous Hard SF book is Mission_OF_gravity, but the criticism of it seems to be on the lack of characterisation"

This is a frequent criticism on hard science fiction in general, as the writers of this genre often de-emphasize proper characterization in favor of the technology and science concepts they have in mind. See here: http://bestsciencefictionbooks.com/hard-science-fiction.php

• "Characters aren’t the main focus when it comes to hard science fiction. The focus is on story and on the logical and technological thread, keeping the story realistic and credible is far more important than focusing on character development. Also the high density of technological details and jargon turns the characters into some type of unrealistic super humans." Dimadick (talk) 15:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that material should be in Hard science fiction, for sure. But maybe not in this general article.PopSci (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Characteristics - Hard and Soft Science fiction

I think the hard and soft science fiction no longer deserves a separate section as its original meaning was the pejorative distinction between hard and soft science. This article giving the views of modern SF writers is quite negative about it [7]. The SF encyclopedia people are also lukewarm about it and think it is about author self promotion, fans, right wing agendas,and knocking soft science..[8] Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 12:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I think it is an important concept in the world of SF. I don't think the present wording puts down soft SF or the soft sciences. BTW left wingers have agendas too. ;-) PopSci (talk) 18:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

However if someone were to take out the section and put hard and soft SF in the See also section I would not object.PopSci (talk) 18:33, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Left wingers have agendas - no never never ever :-). Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 05:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

External Links and cites

Resolved

The link for the University of Liverpool's SF research hub that was given was broken and gave a timeout. I replaced it with the university's updated hub link (page had moved). Jordan za (talk) 11:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC+2)

Checked the article this is fixed Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 06:15, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Work in progress; comments welcome

: There seems to be some cite errors, but I don't know what causes them and how to fix them Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 14:17, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Wakelamp: The issue with the citations errors is that the references aren't being used in the text anywhere. I can help clean it up later, if you want. Could move them into a further reading list or something like that. zchrykng{TC} 14:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Wakelamp: I commented out all the unused references and moved them to the bottom of the list. Someone more familiar with the content and if they are going to be used in the future should review them and delete any that aren’t going to be used. zchrykng{T;C} 17:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

zchrykng moved to external links and changed heading name. My Bad Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 06:18, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Project Plan - Operation "A Cunning Plan" 2018

This is the project plan for Science fiction. Please feel free to make suggestions.

Resolved

Current aims are to address user:Robynthehode's criticism that we were taking ownership of the page. First, DONE different sections in talk for sections in talk, Second, mixture of topics under the same heading causing de facto ownership. My Proposal for the second issue is to split the talk that has already been done into the new sections. Unless there is a disagreement, i will do this in a weeks time Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 11:08, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

No objections here. I don't think splitting existing sections will have much effect. Better to start new ones and jump out when the topic changes.PopSci (talk) 11:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Cool. I agree with your option as well. My proposal to split is based on Robynthehode criticism of mixing as default WP:OWNERSHIP and implied possible escalation to WP:RFC. I also agree with Robynthehode that people should be able to express opinions easily as the broader number of opinions and editing we get the more chance the article will meet the user needs Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 12:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking on board my suggestion. Makes the talk page easier to navigate. As per PopSci suggestion - no need to change discussions already done. Robynthehode (talk) 15:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I will leave as is Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 04:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I suggest we use the issue templates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Resolved Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 04:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

FYI Criteria for B class Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 04:59, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

informed Wikipedia:WikiProject Science Fiction that "changes to the science fiction article are happening to try and bump it up to B Class and make it more approachable for a general reader. To save later reverts to be in line with the Wikiproject your input is welcome". Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 06:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

History - Film

What changes do people want to this section Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 12:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

The tremendous growth in popularity of SF movies since Star Wars (it seems to me) should be documented. Same for the TV section.PopSci (talk) 18:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I just checked out Science fiction film. Lots of love for the genre evident, but not much in the way of sources. PopSci (talk) 11:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

International Science Fiction

• I am going to work on integrating the International section into the other sections, only keeping well sourced material.PopSci (talk) 16:32, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Cool Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 17:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I think it looks much much better as a simple list. It would take me quite a while to read as I only know a little bit , . but I was thinking that we divide and conquer and create quick summaries of each country and culture. We would then have to work together to change the US/UK history pages on the main page and maye crete a a us and Uk page. What do you think? Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 06:02, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Both of you are still mixing topics under non related headings. While you said above you are not acting as though you own this article by creating walls of text that are not divided by relevant headings means that any new editor coming to the talk page has to read through all the topics to try to understand the discussions. This essentially results in people being put of joining in with the discussions (I know it does for me - and this comment is not just about this article) which means the editors writing in this way effectively end up 'owning' the article. I have created a new heading for the discussion about International SF. Robynthehode (talk) 06:28, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Your action is helpful. Your comments feel like a personal attack - we are not trying to own the article by default and will keep it cleaner. Please AGF as we will of you.Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm cool with starting new talk headings. I will make an effort to do that more. Of course if you like the International section as it was before you can change it back. I kind of feel that a notable book or author or film should be in the main part of the article and I have made some effort in that direction. What does this leave for the International section? PopSci (talk) 13:19, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think SF should be divided up by nationality, or at least that shouldn't be a main focus of the article.PopSci (talk) 15:26, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

PopSci what you have done is fine and I see no need for reversion without discussion. What about a notable author and book from each country/culture? I don't mean divide it up by country, I just mean acknowledge that the UK/USA were very important, but the other countries did cool stuff. Does that make sense ? Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

That's kind of what I have been doing, but putting them in the history section.PopSci (talk) 16:42, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Cool. I have looked through the history stuff and I think we do have quite a bit of non Anglo SF Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Unresolved

I think we need a paragraph summary of of the international section covering high points, to and from and the Anglosphere, maybe mention something about its different uses ( protests etc) etc. As an aside, I am finding it fascinating how science fiction is popular in China similar to when America was nation building in the 1950s Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 06:31, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

The "As protest literature" section could certainly be improved. Maybe combined with a new "International" section. BTW my theory (developed while working on this article) is that SF mainly comes from imperial (or formerly imperial) nations. England, France, Germany, USA, Russia, Japan, China. Non-imperial nations like Ireland, Poland (one exception there), Korea not so much.PopSci (talk) 17:01, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

OOOH - I like the theory - The only counter example I came up with was Belgium - but they did a lot fo comic books ( Tin Tin went to the moon I think) Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 18:24, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

"They wept because there were no more worlds to conquer."  ;-) PopSci (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• We are still on-topic for this section:  :-) Here is an interesting article: https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/06/why-the-west-loves-sci-fi-and-fantasy-a-cultural-explanation/276816/ PopSci (talk) 13:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Illustrations / Exciting Chart / Dangerous Thoughts

So to make it B class I think we need some interesting illustrations. Which ones do people like and dislike. What areas needs more illustration! Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 04:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Lead/Lede

This sentence doesn't match up with the history "Historically, science-fiction stories have had a grounding in actual science, but now this is only expected of hard science fiction".Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 08:42, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

True. I think WP policy says the lede ought to sum up what the article says. I will take that sentence out.PopSci (talk) 11:05, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I also took out the part about avoiding the supernatural. That's correct but not discussed in the article directly.PopSci (talk) 11:08, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

If you are avoiding the supernatural, you would pretty much have to exclude Star Wars, and anything with telepaths. For hard science fiction, sure, not so much for soft. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 15:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

There are vehemently non-supernatural theories of telepathy. Star Wars, as part of its pretense of being science fiction, draws vaguely on some of those theories which could be characterized as mystical but not supernatural/religious in nature. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Definition of Science Fiction

There is an article on Definition of science fiction. IMO some of the quotes there are better than some that are used here.PopSci (talk) 14:37, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I agreeWakelamp (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I have just reverted the edit by Wakelamp re definitions section. It made the section unreadable. My comment re discussion was because the other posts were not put under this section but the one above. It makes discussion easier and clearer for anyone joining them that alternate topics are discussed under the correct heading. I strongly object to the changes made to the definitions section. It is concise with a suitable link to the article on definitions. Quotes could possibly be trimmed but it seems okay to me. Robynthehode (talk) 11:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Rollback- "* Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits. Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 01:57, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

As a long-time SF fan I like the quotes too. But I kind of wonder about the usefulness for the casual reader. You have a section called "Definitions" and the main point seems to be that there is not really one. There is also WP:Quote farm, which may apply.PopSci (talk) 15:15, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Having re-read the 'Defintions' (plural for good reason) section it seems concise for the past and present debate about the term. If the lay reader wants to look into the definitions of science fiction further there is the definitions article. Can't really see a problem. The section shows that there is not agreed upon definition and there is still debate. Great. Wakelamp edit removed the intro text and explanation about the debate over the definition and started with a quote. Apart from being counter to good writing practice, starting with a quote followed by a string of other quotes without context is just confusing. Best left as it is unless consensus determines otherwise. Robynthehode (talk) 18:26, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah well popsci. You said try it. I have  :-). My critique of the existing article/definition is that it is full of name dropping of fan/peoples' favourite authors as arguments by authority, too much fan service, no historicity and over much detail for a top level article which is covered in the same detail in lower level detail. My new suggestion is that we use the Oxford definition "Fiction based on imagined future scientific or technological advances and major social or environmental changes, frequently portraying space or time travel and life on other planets" and just say that it has changed over time. Other example of problems - do we really need page after page of SF by country, many names unknown to the casual reader, too many small sub genres, a debate about definition in the first section of the article, and for the SF article to be longer than that for Literature. I also disagree of course that my change was unreadable and i would have been happy to work constructively to improve it. This article is strange as it has so many reverts ( 13 this year alone) and i am concerned that it will never reach a higher class because of it Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 04:52, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Good points. As I said I like the "Definitions" section myself but think it's too much insider stuff for a reader looking for basic information on SF. As for the "International" section I'm guessing that someone put one of those "Doesn't present a world-wide view" tags on the top and the section is a response to that. I'd be inclined to leave it since it serves its purpose and being at the end can be skimmed or skipped by less interested readers. PopSci (talk) 14:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

So do I go and be brave and change the definition? And say something like "There has been much discussion over what science fiction is (reference to def discussion page) which has changed over time ( history of SF) and whether the meaning is the same in different cultures (reference to SF country page). A simple but not at all encompassing definition from the Oxford SF Dicitonary "Fiction based on imagined future scientific or technological advances and major social or environmental changes, frequently portraying space or time travel and life on other planets" ". ....I can't remember whether I got it from Oxford Short or the Oxford SF... I am busy with real life and will check later) . So what about that Robyn the Reverter ??? :-) Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 05:28, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@popsci -I agree that the article is too US and UK orientated, but I think a good summary and integration is better Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 05:28, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

A number of points: no Wakelamp d[@-@]b you shouldn't be brave and change the definition section as I have objected to the change and it is still under discussion. According to WP:BRD and WP:CON you should seek consensus for any significant changes once another editor has reverted your edit and objected in the talk page. Second: a definition should not be a dictionary definition WP:NOTDIC, although an encyclopadia definition can include reference to dictionary definitions. Third: your reference to me 'Robyn the Reverter', would seem to indicate that you want to bypass my objection or otherwise think you have ownership of this article. See WP:OWNERSHIP although you may just be expressing WP:STEWARDSHIP. Even if you are expressing the latter you need to take on board objections to your edits and discuss them properly on the talk page. You can of course in these situations also ask for WP:RFC, although I don't think we have reached that point here. Fourthly: you (both) seem to have ignored my comment (although it may have only been in the revert edit commentary) about not mixing subjects under discussion under a talk page heading. It really does help other editors who want to join the discussion to have each topic discussed only (or at least mostly) under the relevant heading. Lastly: despite your objections to my revert I do appreciate that Wakelamp d[@-@]b and PopSci are engaged in a long term effort to improve this article which is, of course, commendable. I also understand it can be frustrating when an 'outside' editor 'jumps' in and reverts edits. However all editors contributions should be taken seriously and in good faith and any editor has the right under Wikipedia to edit as and when they like. I should also, perhaps, clarify my 'unreadable' comment about Wakelamp d[@-@]b edit to the definition section. Having gone back and reread it it is readable but not (and this was my original impression and one that I stand by) if you are a casual encyclopaedia reader who just wants a quick summary of what science fiction is. In that context the current one is better. There is an editorial summary with various quotes from possibly known authors which support the summary. I look forward to further constructive discussion. Robynthehode (talk) 07:47, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

My robot eyes and pop sci and wildwookie names show subject interest, but we have not demonstrated ownership. Not every edit has to be voted, and we have been discussing changes. I asked you for thoughts, and I thank you for saying nice things and discussion of unreadable. On the other side, I should have gone to your talk rather than "Robyn the reverter" , BUT this page has too many reverts. I did not mean hurt. by I am from Australia land of convicts and snakes and was using the friendly Australian tag called [TAKING_THE_P@#$_OUT]. Forgive my uncouth vernacular, but no harm was intended. :-) Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 17:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I have renamed the section to meet your requirements, but to be humorous so as to to reduce tensions. This article needs an agreed strategy and the definition problem is an example of it. [WP:DIC] says wikipedia is not a dictionary. but i think "Wikipedia:Dictionaries_as_sources" and the Essay "Wikipedia:You are probably not a lexicologist or a lexicographer" is better and they both discuss the pros and cons. I disagree that the current definition suits a casual, as there are too many, English language centric, irrelevant as a whole article exists, and the authors are out of date. I have contacted the nice SF encyclopedia people anc created quora posts hoping for inspiration on this and genres. but we are getting nowhere, so I suggest let Oxford have its day and beef up the definition article. Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 17:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Firstly I disagree. As I said above a dictionary definition can be referenced or even included under the 'definition' section it should not be the only one. The definition text at the moment is fine but may be improved by including a referenced dictionary definition. Secondly: referencing Wakelamp d[@-@]b your comment above about voting and discussion. Voting is not part of Wikipedia except as a straw poll. It is based on consensus. The discussion (correct me if I'm wrong) seems to have been a discussion between the two of you. While this may be just a plain fact because you both have the time and dedication to improve this article it doesn't mean that contributions by other editors should be taken any less seriously than your own. Thirdly: Re too many reverts. Reverts can be frustrating. There are lots of reasons for reverts but if they are justified then no matter how many there are is just one of those things. Thank you for clarifying your comment about 'Robyn the reverter'. To be positive and if you are both happy for me to take this on I will edit the defintions section and suggest a new one here. Robynthehode (talk) 06:28, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

First DEFINITIONS, Robynthehode, Excellent idea - Mine in hindsight had issues, BUT I still disagree that the current one is fine as per my other comments so please if you wish take them into account. We need a straw poll before change. Second VOTING, I used Voting which was the wrong word. My opinion is straw poll only if there is conflict as they slow things. The loose randomly discussing confederation of planets is WildWookiee,PopSci and myself. I do not speak for them, Third, reversions.In terms of work, we all care if our hard work goes boom (especially the unreadable comment :-)), but it's more fun to get an article fixed and see other ideas from other editor. I am going to disagree with you based on Real World stuff, the high reverts to edit ratio is BAD. BUT and this is the good BUT we can prove it wrong by fixing stuff. Fourth. My cunning plan heading was kick arse Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 16:21, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Influence

What changes do people want to this section Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 12:42, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

More information from good sources should be added.PopSci (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

One thing the article does not really address is the issue of popularity.PopSci (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Classification section

I'm concerned that this section is basically rife for WP:FANCRUFT - it's basically just a list of authors who the editors think belong in that category at this point and there's no citations. I mean it's common knowledge that Isaac Asimov is considered a hard SF author, but there's got to be a WP:RS somewhere, right? I'm very tempted to restructure this to focus more on the social and cultural queues that led to the subgenre split between "hard" and "soft" and do away with the lists altogether. But in case this is retreading old ground I thought it prudent to check here first. Simonm223 (talk) 19:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I made my change. It's now much more a discussion of the paradigmatic classification and how views of it have shifted, referencing notable authors. Simonm223 (talk) 16:50, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I like what you did. I will try another move and make it part of the "Science fiction studies" section, since it seems to be at least related to that.PopSci (talk) 15:33, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I also moved the "Elements" list. Part of the reason to have lists at the end of the article is because they tend to send readers off to other articles.PopSci (talk) 16:14, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Delete the Definition section

i think we need purge out of the article most of the definition debate to Definitions_of_science_fiction. Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 15:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC) Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I moved the most difficult paragraph. I hope that helps.SpecInterest (talk) 09:27, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay. I just looked at the other genres. I have changed the section name to delete the definition. The content is too deep for an initial casual reader Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 13:30, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

There seems to be a consensus to trim it a little. I will try taking out what seem to be the more confusing items. PopSci (talk) 02:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

As it is right now, I think the definitions section could be expanded a little bit. A short paragraph introducing science fiction as having an actively debated definition seems appropriate to me. Succeeding that, the current roster of definitions by notable authors of the genre seems quite adequate. Last, a third paragraph should be developed around the perceived definitions and themes of science fiction, or just some paragraph that better links science fiction to the life of the casual reader. I have already started a small way into that third paragraph (with sources). I wanted to add those sources here as well if anyone would like to review. Links-- --Civil Protection Team 9 (talk) 00:46, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Structure of the Article

The Template:Science fiction is very different from the article. What should we do? Outline Sub genres Cultures - miscellaneous - region - awards --Multimedia -- cinematic -- literary art audio Media - literature - stage - film - Television Themes -Applied -Formal -Life -Physical -social Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 14:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see a problem. The purpose of the template is to provide links to articles readers might be interested in. The purpose of the article is to provide a brief summary of science fiction in a way that is readable for the average reader. That it also provides links is secondary.PopSci (talk) 18:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to try moving "Characteristics" below "History" since it is now expanded and seems to be more related to the "Influence" section which it would then lead into. I think it's more common in WP articles to first define a topic, then give the history, then discuss its influence. Making the change now, feel free to revert if you liked it better before.PopSci (talk) 16:03, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I also think that the article could benefit from a greater restructuring. I have been playing around with the major sections and subsections in this sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Civil_Protection_Team_9/New_sandbox#Subgenres. I'll be making some edits to take the article in this direction, so if anyone else has thoughts on the structure of the page, please share them. Civil Protection Team 9 (talk) 00:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Video Game section

What is this trying to accomplish? The list is hardly exhaustive and is unlikely to be representative of any accepted list of genre defining games. This seems like a good place for a link to another article exploring this topic in more depth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.176.196.206 (talk) 12:28, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

It could be spun off as a new article List of science fiction video games and then that title added to the see also list.73.170.223.31 (talk) 23:51, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

A complete list would be hundreds of games.PopSci (talk) 19:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I think a video game section is a good idea. I don't know much about the topic to contribute. There should also be a section on SF art. PopSci (talk) 11:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

We really need a main article on the topic. It seems to me anyway.PopSci (talk) 09:50, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

How about taking out the video games section for now? Then put back when there is a main article. Right now it is more like an essay of one person's opinions. Not that his/her opinions are bad. 2601:648:8400:C040:0:0:0:5F56 (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

That might be a good idea.PopSci (talk) 18:15, 13 December 2021 (UTC)