Talk:Cyberpunk derivatives/Archive 1

Move Literary Punk genres
I think the literary punk genres should be moved to their own category altogether. Just my two cents... Piecraft 21:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with Piecraft. This is the stupidest idea I have ever seen. Why put the literary genres alongside the musical one?


 * also, calling pulp hero stuff such as indiana jones or the like "dieselpunk" or "nazipunk" is another idiotic idea. --24.90.198.245


 * thirded. it's 'novel' to have the different punk genres on one page but in the end wikipedia is a serious site and it would reduce confusion to general users to seperate the article to List of punk music genres and List of punk literary genres. --MilkMiruku 13:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Was also wondering whether perhaps a template table should be made for the literary genres as well seeing as they have been categorised under historical-time and thematic style? This would also offer a much more easy manner of navigation. Piecraft 05:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Update: I have just added a template for all literary punk genres - therefore it is no longer neccessary to have two separate pages seeing as both are now divided into two sections, i.e. Literature and Music therefore there is not enough sufficient data to have two separate pages for literary and musical genre, so for now I think it's best to simply keep it under punk genres as it is. Piecraft 06:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Help adding more content
Is anyone up to the challenge of browsing the articles listed in the Literary Genres section and adding and correcting them? I've been trying to find more info but am not as familiar with some of the other genres as I am with dieselpunk or transistorpunk. Any help is appreciated. Thanks Piecraft 20:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * One of the reasons that you cannot find more information is that many of these genres are so obscure that they are practically non-existent. Indeed, the fact remains that for most of these genres, save for cyberpunk, splatterpunk, and steampunk, the lists of literary works would consist entirely of back-appropriated works.  john k makes an excellent argument in the Dark City discussion that none of the works in dieselpunk were part of a conscientious "dieselpunk" literary movement.  I submit that the vast majority of the articles in the Literary Genres section would also spectacularly fail the "conscientious literary movement" test, and should be subject to a request for deletion.  Alternatively, should these articles not be deleted, I submit that we create a new "snowpunk" article and list The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, Snowcrash, and The Snowman as the paragons of this nascent literary movement centered on crystalline frozen aqueous precipitation. Avogadro94 19:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * As I said there, words are created to describe things that already existed. Vernes and Welles didn't even know the word punk (their works weren't considered by them alternative history but an alernative reality), yet I don't see anything wrong to name their works Steampunk. New words are created to facilitate description and communication, and be the base of new things. Calling some works Steampunk, you try to describe VAGUELY some common points of reference, some principles, the essence, the spirit, atmosphere and mood. If we didn't have the word Steampunk, nobody could describe all these, or even see them even if he read the alleged Steampunk works. IF jokingly yo ucall the Snowman et al works Snowpunk, someone will catch the spirit of Snowpunk from them and make use of it. The works that he will base on it, will be Snowpunk, even if you didn't intent it Pictureuploader 21:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the suggestion that Wikipedia is the place to create something for other people to attach themselves. It is a store of existing knowledge, not a place for new knowledge.  I propose that proponents of dieselpunk need to create a legitimate body of work that can be referenced as dieselpunk.  The setting for a now defunct role-playing game is not a literary genre, it is a footnote. --Ccranium 02:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * New words are created to facilitate description and communication, and be the base of new things.- Pictureuploader
 * That is a perfectly fine explanation of how some words are created. However, in Wikipedia practice, it has been made abundantly clear that  Wikipedia is not for creating Original Ideas.  In fact, No Original Research is one of the official policies of Wikipedia.  Creating pages for which one is unable to cite sources debases the value of Wikipedia.  If you (or Piecraft) respond to this, take care to look just below the editing box.  You will clearly see that "Content... must be based on verifiable sources."  Without credible sources, these articles are worthless with regard to Wikipedia.  By all means, feel free to advocate elsewhere for new "x-punk" words and encourage authors to develop "x-punk" works.  But, this is not the place for developing new genres. Avogadro94 04:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I find it disturbing how elitist and vindictive certain so called "editors" are - and this is what truly gives a bad name to Wikipedia, because individuals such as yourselves who claim to be preserving the true ideals of Wikipedia are ironically only making them worse off. The fact that this argument stemmed from my observation that Dark City was relevant in terms of being reference within the dieselpunk article is hilarious. Hilarious, because it's sickening to think that individuals such as EurekaLott and Avogadro94, not to mention the omnscient LGagnon would go on such a witch hunt after extensive work has gone into documenting and attempting to source these lesser known genres. Albeit, LESSER KNOWN, but STILL relevant to the literary punk genre. These genres have been defined and adopted not only in the notable GURPS timepunk but also in other articles which attests to their existence. I think that before these rogue editors - for that is at best what I can define a band of individuals who are hellbent on ridding articles without any other reason than for it not to fall within their "idea" of what they consider to be Wikipedia. I along with several other editors whose expertise and interest involves literature and the x-punk (as it has been defined above) literary genres are building up firther information and citing sources to these articles so as they are fully expanded and prove to be consistent with the Wikipedia ideology. However if people continue to harrass each other and continuously vote for deletion any article to which they have no previous knowledge about seeing as you lot clearly do not understand literary punk nor care about it by your own statements, then you shouldn't discuss or argue against it. Fine you disagree its legitimacy, but funnily enough these punk genres were not pulled out of a magician's hat, they DO exist, because they have been listed and descrbied, albeit in short and briefly in SF magazines, other articles relating to cyberpunk and steampunk as well as being terms adopted across the Net. The category for dieselpunk was already put up for deletion by the brains of this operation - EurekaLott, oddly enough he was gunned down by a unanimous vote to KEEP the category because every other intelligent editor realises the importance for such a genre and the notability of it. Therefore here's something to keep your minds thinking, if you do not know about something i.e. a term or genre that does not apply to your "world" but which is verifiable and notable - I would suggest you stop trying to remove it and again, try to impose your "fascist" ways upon other editors who are trying to add interesting and verifiable content to Wikipedia. Go back to your Dark City page, and don't worry we won't add or edit anythign there - God forbid we alter anything withou your approval oh great ones! Piecraft 16:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry that you feel like this is a personal attack, but let's keep name calling out of this. Would you please address john k's concern that dieselpunk is a back-appropriation? I'm sure that this would do much to make the issue a lot clearer.  I'm honestly trying to figure out if dieselpunk, among the other apparently fringe genres, is indeed a conscious literary movement that has been documented outside of Wikipedia.  Case in point: you put in a link to The Works of Karl Schroeder in the dieselpunk page.  However, a search for "Karl Schroeder" + dieselpunk yields zero hits, leading me to think that this is your own POV. I appreciate the work that you put into this (and many other "x-punk" articles), but this looks like you are trying to create genres that do not exist. Avogadro94 16:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Dieselpunk may or may not be a legitimate literary genre, the fact is you and your supporters have completely failed to define it in any meaningful way and provide any meaningful external reference. You need to clearly state what makes it legitimate genre without referencing anything you yourself have identified as dieselpunk. If it exists in SF Magazines then there must be works which were intentionally created to be dieselpunk, no? A quick Google search for 'dieselpunk' turns up a thread at rpg.net's forums (http://forum.rpg.net/archive/index.php/t-1033.html) where the creator of Children of the Sun, your major reference, states: "CotS isn't an alternate history game and doesn't take place on Earth." If the game which the term 'dieselpunk' was created for isn't alternate history, then how can one of your criteria be alternate history? You need tighten your arguments. Stop taking it personally. We're not attacking you, honestly.  --Ccranium 16:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * An example of dieselpunk being notable is that Lewis Pollak who coined the term wrote an essay about it in the Game Trade Magazine #30, there is a vital article in it written by Lewis Pollak, who explains the basis of Dieselpunk. I wrote this above. The article exists, the author exists, thus it is notable. The term is not purely defined as alternate history - it has been regarded by the followers of fiction and cyberpunk to take place on Earth - yes the game of Children of the Sun is not entirely supposed to be taking place on Earth as we know it, but a fictional setting. But if you checked your argument, you;d notice The Children of the SUn is also fantasy-based with different races, along with Humans, Pollak does not argue this fact but once again does not state the fact of his game being placed in another world or time in the future as dieselpunk but all the elements mentioned in the arrticle i.e. atmosphere, style and influences of a time period - predominantly the 1930s and 1950s. This is why I ONCE AGAIN bring to your attention the fact that Dark City could very well be categorised as dieselpunk, just like any punk genre movies and literature fall into these categories to describe a subversive style of sci-fi which represents qualities adherent to the punk culture.

And I'm sorry but I do find this to be a personal attack, simply because the authors or editors of Dark City did not agree with me they had to orchestrate this witch hunt and bash down my published work and efforts to add content to other articles which were less expanded before I added insight into them (the fact being that I am a follower of cyberpunk and its spin-off sub-genres). I have also contributed extensively in the steampunk and cyberpunk articles in aiding the association with relevant works. I do feel personally attacked and targeted because everyone from the Dark City article is ganging-up on me. Not that I care, because I find it cowardly. EurekaLott probably has something against me, what I do not know - but he was proven wrong when he put the category of dieselpunk up for deletion and supporters testified that such a term and genre was notable as well as the category. Although I must say Ccranium you seem to be more civilised in your apporach of debating this. I don't minf people questioning the authenticity or content of an article, that is to be expected after all, especially if it is involving a topic to which you don't know much about or have never heard of. However, I do regret in saying I find it annoying that certain editors on here must always strive to delete anything as their only option. It reminds me almost of the days of the Inquisition or the Nazi Regime, where anything that was outside of the realm of understanding to the authority or those imposing that authority in their self-righteous manner would burn and destroy every document and article that went against their views. Just because dieselpunk is a relatively new term (as new as steampunk believe it or not) does not make it unverifiable. The term was coined by Lewis Pollak, it has also been adopted by followers of the cyberpunk, steampunk culture. The term for dieselpunk has often been exchanged as atomicpunk. Is it too hard to believe that I was not the originator of all the article you supposedly believe I created out of a magical hat? Stonepunk, Bronzepunk, Sandalpunk, Middlepunk and Clockpunk have been referred to on the steampunk page. I gave those sub-genres decent-sized articles. I expanded them slightly with the little information given and sourced from around the Net as well as what I knew of it from magazines. Dieselpunk on the other was written by myself along with the added help of other editors, there was another editor who contributed an article for atmoicpunk which was later merged. The term has existed longer than my presence in making the article, therefore you cannot tell me that I wrote this up all in vain. Which is not the same as what I can say for the others on here attempting to tarnish it with ill-refutable claims. I provided enoguh proof, perhaps not a tantamount as can be excercised for Cyberpunk in comparison, however Steampunk's external links provide little claim for it's existence as well - but we're not talking about whether it exists or not are we? Oh no, it has to be dieselpunk simply because it is a genre that is lesser known in terms of the mainstream. I would reccomend perusing the Steampunk talk page as well for further insight on other users who contributed and discussed it there. Again I thank you for your interest and civility with this matter Ccranium, I cannot say the same for your peers however. Piecraft 17:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Did you seriously just compare having the veracity of a Wikipedia article to the oppression of the Spanish Inquisition or the Nazis? Dude.  Take a step back.  I know you value your work, but seriously.  Godwin's_law, look it up.  --Ccranium 17:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I was being satirical, perhaps you should get over your own ego before questioning mine. I couldn't care less anymore whether you want to delete this or not. I am merely stating a point - which is I stand by my convictions. If you seem to think I value the effort I put into writing up or expanding a particular article then you need to re-check your criticism. I am merely trying to contribute to this "project" as it has been called by adding to it particular articles of interest. Have you also checked wiktionary lately? They seem to also have dieselpunk listed there - what a surprise, I guess it must have been me right? Also it's all very well to put a claim that this article should be deleted, but I am still waiting for a good reason as to your claims, umm... perhaps why? No sources? well we know that to be bogus... so what else? Provide your own evidence to back-up your flawed beliefs, but don;t impose them on here. Good luck. Piecraft 17:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Again, I am sorry that you feel attacked, but I honestly believe that nobody here is attacking you. Let us please remain civil. I patiently ask you to please address john k's back-appropriation concern. Avogadro94 17:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)