Talk:Science fiction/Archive 4

not mention of Cyberpunk genre
Not a lynk or list of sub-genres of Science fiction such as Cyberpunk —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.151.177.190 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed "Scope and Purpose" section to Talk Page
Hi, I have removed the Scope and Purpose section to the Talk Page, as it now seems redundant, given the current lead paragraph, and also lacks significant references for the opinions given. I can see a lot of criticism of this section here on the talk page, but nobody seems to be defending it very much. Any thoughts? Leeborkman 04:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The borders of the genre of science fiction are difficult to define, and the dividing lines between its subgenres are often fluid.

''Traditionally, science fiction has often been concerned with the great hopes people place in science but also with their fears concerning the negative side of technological development. The latter is expressed in the classic theme of the hubristic scientist who is destroyed by his own creation, as in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. Broadly speaking, the genre is concerned with the effects of science or technology on society or individuals. These effects may be epic in scope or personal. The science-fictional elements may be imagined or rooted in reality, original or cliché. See science-fiction genres for a list of some genres.''

''Much science fiction attempts to generate a sense of wonder, or awe, from the setting, circumstances, or ideas presented. Paradigm shifts may be used to induce a sense of shock, or a change in the frame of reference for the reader. ''

''A popular misconception is that science fiction attempts to predict the future. Some commentators may even go so far as to judge the "success" of a work of science fiction on the accuracy of its predictions. However, while much science fiction is set in the future, most authors are not attempting literally to predict it; instead, they use the future as an open framework for their themes. As Ray Bradbury put it, "People ask me to predict the future, when all I want to do is prevent it." A science-fiction writer is generally not trying to write a history of the future that they believe will happen, any more than a writer of westerns is trying to create a historically accurate depiction of the old West. Writers are as likely to write of a future that they hope will not happen as they are to write about a future they think will. Future societies and remarkable technological innovations are presented as enabling devices for cognitive exploration &mdash; or simply for entertainment &mdash; and the narratives are not meant to be predictive in any simple way. There are exceptions, however, especially in early science fiction.''

Commercial purposes?
Come on, Hayford! You are going to have to provide support for the "for commercial purposes" bit. Are you trying to say that the only rewason to superimpose an SF setting on a non-SF story is "for commercial reasons"? Could a writer not simply choose an SF setting because they think it works better? because they like the SF setting? Are you sure you want to make that claim in the SF lead paragraph? Leeborkman 06:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, what I had in mind was Dr. Johnson's dicta: "No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money." From there: If you take a cowboy story, set it on an alien planet, change the cows to digglewaggers and the rustlers to horned purple beings, then you can (could) sell the story to Thrilling Wonder Tales for $50.  Hence "commercial purposes".  I think most fans of SF overlook, in their enthusiasm for the genre, that once writers have sold their first story or two, then they never again write except for the money.  I could be wrong, of course, but I sure ain't gonna argue about it. Hayford Peirce 16:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Arthur Schopenhauer said on his Parerga und Paralipomena that Right of the Author (akin to copyright) is the sole worse thing in the history of literature and philosophy. People should write because they have something to say not because they will earn a reveneu for doing that. He acknowledged that people had to earn its living, but he said that writing for the purpose of earning a living only creates meaningless works. I think he predated in a few centuries the concept of selling out'. :-) Loudenvier 17:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I ain't denying that writers do stuff for money, but is that especially true of SF, and is it especially true of using an SF setting, and even if it is, is that one of the defining features of SF, and even if it is, can you provide reputable citations, and even if you can, is this point notable? ;-) Hayford, mate... keep this stuff for your award-winning collection of critical essays that blows the lid of the whole sordid SF business. Oh, and how did I forget... isn't it true that the majority of SF actually written is probably fan-fic, ie not intended for commercial purposes at all?  I think this business has made you cynical, Hayford ;-) Leeborkman 17:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I wonder if Schopenhauer had an independent income? If so, it sure makes it easier to write his kind of blather.  As for the majority of SF being fan-fic, sure it is, because it's being written to be sold to fans.  But even *that* is written in a commercial way, learned by trial and error by each author in order to get sold in the first place.  Don't believe me?  Ask all the millions of would-be writers who *haven't* been published.  And the minor writers, like me, who have difficulty being published.  And even being a "big name" isn't enough.  The last couple of books by Jack Vance were just *barely* published.... Whether what you write is good or bad, it still has to meet commercial standards, set by editors and publishers, in order to get published in the first place. Hayford Peirce 17:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Loudenvier. And anyway, does it matter that SF writers write for money?  What about Dickens?  What about Mozart?  What about Shakespeare?  "...but there are also many works of Renaissance Art in which an exotically religious setting is superimposed, for commercial purposes, upon what would otherwise be a non-religious ceiling."  See ya! Leeborkman 17:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Schopenhauer certainly didn't write for money. He was a teacher. I think commercialism will inevitably degrade the quality of human work in general. It takes someone like Grigori Perelman to show that the monetary aspects of creativity is misleading. Schopenhauer recognized the need for making a living, he only critizes the act of writing with profits in mind. How many SF writers changed their characters to make them more commercial-like? You said a work must meet certain commercial standards, and I say the problem is that it must meet a commercial instead of a qualitative standard to be published. See what Metallica had done... How they morphed for commercial purposes into something completely in denial of their roots... By the way, my comment was just a humorous one... But I did agree to some extent with Schopenhauer... It's just like Wikipedia and free/open initiatives.. All of them regards Copyright as something inherently evil. Also, critizing Schopenhauer by reading my words is pointless, read the original because I can't provide better arguments than he himself provided. Dickens wrote for money, and was sometimes critized for that. Mozart was not driven by the money he received, just read about him... He completed his greatest work in poverty and in poverty he died. But, in the end, it has nothing to do with the SF article... I think the removal of "for commercial purposes" to be a correct one, it would read as POV if let in. Regards. Loudenvier 19:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Structure
The first section -- prominent authors speaking on SF -- seems strange, uninformative, and bald to come so early in the article without a better context being given. Either incorporate these quotes into useful prose about the definitions and guidelines of SF or move them to the end of the article. As it stands, a History of SF section would be a MUCH better opening.Amber388 14:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Links
Please discuss link inclusion/exclusion here. Revert warriors will be blocked if they violate the spirit of WP:3RR. RadioKirk (u|t|c)  16:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

SFF Portals
While I appreciate the Wikipedia's concerns about spam, the recent conflict over the SFF Portals section I believe comes from misconception and misunderstanding, and I find it hard to understand how major SFF literary portals can be construed as "spam".

SFF is fundamentally a literary tradition, and literary tradition sites were focused on. That I was threatened with an IP block over the matter suggests to me a poor opinion and knowledge of the topic being discussed - Science Fiction - and where the roots of science fiction continue from the literary tradition continue on the net.

Frankly, I find it hard not to consider this abuse of editorial position - this is a public article, but only 1 editor's opinion of a matter may be published? I think that undermine's the entire principle of the Wikipedia.

As for the issue of contention - I'll list the links used below and discuss them, and if there any any objections to *any* of them then I'll be happy to remove them.

Motivation: The SF genre is primarily a literary genre, with major literary portals online keeping the genre alive, both as a general resource on modern SF, and also as a study aid to SF as a genre full-stop.

Links:


 * ASFA - Association of Science Fiction & Fantasy artists

Reason: SF art has gone hand-in-hand with the literary tradition from the earlist days. The ASFA is a pretty major presence for SF art online and know of few similar-sized resources.


 * Asimovs - Website for Asimov's science fiction magazine

Reason: Asimov's is a key SF magazine, both in modern and historical terms. Was previously listed.


 * Chronicles Network - Established SFF forums

Reason: According to Big Boards this is the largest online community that discusses SF in it's literary tradition, though also covers alternative media such as film and TV.


 * Gutenberg Australia SF Project - Many freely downloadable science-fiction books with an extensive bibliography of public domain science fiction.

Reason: This link was previously included, and appeared quite relevant, so was left.


 * Locus Mag - Key publication dealing with science fiction

Reason: Locus Mag is an industry magazine dealing with SF publishing. It deals with news, reviews, and interviews perhaps more than most.


 * SciFi.com - Official website for the American Sci Fi Channel.

Reason: Probably the best known mass-market SF site online.


 * SFFnet - portal for science fiction & fantasy

Reason: Long established SF website, dealing especially with reviews and news. Another key general SF portal.


 * SFF World - Established portal with reviews, blogs, and forums.

Reason: Another established portal, with online forums, reviews, and news.


 * SF Hub - Science fiction archive project at Liverpool University

Reason: Key resource for academic research on science fiction as a genre and literary tradition.


 * SF Site - SF book reviews portal

Reason: Another significant SF portal dealing with news and reviews. Perhaps sffnet and locusmag represent this area sufficiently?


 * SFWA - Science Fiction Writers of America.

Reason: Major support arm for SF writers


 * Worldcon - Website for the biggest international science fiction convention.

Reason: The major convention for SF as a literary tradition. Note that Dragoncon may be larger, but deals more specifically with SFF as film media. Probably should include Dragoncon, actually.

Overall, I find the claims that these are "spam links" ingenious at best, and ignorant at worst. Without proper explanation as to how these links are so-called "spam" I find no justification in them being awarded that title and being removed.

I also find the behviour of those editors who sought to remove them as quite misguided.

Moving the SFF portals sites above the references should help to reduce the amount of spam, but I'm quite happy to look after the list on that account.

In the meantime, will repost the SFF Portals section and reference this talk entry.

Edit conflict as posted while new version being posted, so re-submitted.

ADDED: Well, the SFF Portals section has gone up, but it's messy and I think there are key omissions. Seems the SF mags that are the foundation of the genre are now delegated as "spam"? Also, list set up with improper descriptions. I figure I get banned if I edit again, so will keep discussing the issue here, even though changes appear to be being made while ignoring it.
 * Whoever wrote all of the above should sign his Wiki ID, but I do agree with everything he said -- I don't see how any of these portals can legitimately called spam: it's not as if Charlie Brown kept putting in a link to Locus that urged you to buy a subscription. And the SWFA, of which I'm a member, is hardly spam by any conceivable stretch of the term.  So, whoever, is editing out these portals, would you please leave them alone.  If you think one (or more) of the portals is spam, please state your reasons.  You may well be correct.  In which case we'll get rid of it.  If not, leave them alone.... Hayford Peirce 18:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * External links have no place in an article unless they have relevance to an article, even then you dont need 10 sci-fi portals, please state how each of the above links have relevance except to promote a site Wikipedia is not a spam database thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

In any encyclopedia, external citations serve not only to reference the existing article but also to suggest further reading. User:Lexic Dark sounds a little hot under the collar. Rick Norwood 18:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks to me as if each of the 10 existing links was sufficiently explained to justify its continuing presence. If you disagree, rather than just waving the word SPAM about, how about explaining, specifically, how each of these portals is spam rather than being a legitimate link? Hayford Peirce 18:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You have to rationlise why they have relvance to an article, why the link needs to be there.. Just being "the best" or, "great news" does not cut it. thanks'''/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think a useful way forward might be to try to avoid, at this stage the word "spam" the question of "promoting" or whether links are "good". Instead, I encourage everyone interested in this debate to read External links and be prepared to quote chapter and verse from this guideline to justify the inclusion or exclusion of particular links. Notinasnaid 14:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, back again. I saw the links section was made a mess of just after I left the discussion, but figured against modifying it, due to the somewhat excessive passions involved.

I possibly have a couple of WikiID's, but always forgot to use them, so I've always edited Wikipedia anonymously. It's never been a huge contribution, but always aimed to be constructive. I figured the project remit made anonymous edits an essential part of the contribution.

Anyway - back to links - in my opinion a web resource that seeks to link to reputable resources needs some idea of where to link to, so the existing list was modified to create a proper set of links which are:

- to major authorative portals for SF online - provide further information on SF and its subgenres - are useful for further study of its roots and history - are useful for learning about its current state - are predominantly useful to readers and non-commercial

I've thought again about my previous list and modified it so as to try to avoid duplication of key resources (ie, book review sites), but I think it is especially important to list multiple SF magazines, as these are the platforms of the genre:


 * Analog - Website for the Analog SF magazine
 * Asimovs - Website for Asimov's science fiction magazine
 * Chronicles Network - Established SFF forums
 * Locus Mag - Key publication dealing with science fiction
 * SFF World - Established portal with reviews, blogs, and forums.
 * SF Hub - Science fiction archive project at Liverpool University
 * SF Site - Science fiction magazine and reviews
 * SFWA - Science Fiction Writers of America.
 * Worldcon - Website for the biggest international science fiction convention.

I've specifically moved the ASFA site as that's arts based and I've focused on the literary roots. I've also removed the science fiction museum for the time being as the website is incomplete and not so useful for users until properly rebuilt (the Liverpool resource should easily cover that, especially for study). I've also removed the scifi channel as that's focused on film&TV, and there's are already dedicated Wikipedia pages where this is covered in detail.

If anyone has any specific objections you are welcome to raise them.
 * Reverted the spamming again - Wikipedia is not a link farm. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 18:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Matthew, would you like to make it clear in what way this is "spamming"? I would also be grateful if you could justify the existing list. I am trying to be polite and constructive here, but your hysterical attention to reverting edits with no ample justification is just plain unconstructive to the Wikipedia project.

-- Yeah, isn't the Science Fiction Writers of America just a PR site for a particular commercial interest. I have a feeling someone is a member? I imagine there are plenty of 'establish SF forums'. I have never heard of the one listed there.
 * I agree that the SFWA doesn't really belong here as an external link. It adds little to the subject of the article. However, as an important trade body it deserves an article just like Teamsters, which would of course link to its page. I don't think it is major enough to become a top level "see also, specifically because the page already links to Worldcon. It is always prefererable in Wikipedia to send people to another article, if it exists and is worthwhile, rather than to an external link. Notinasnaid 08:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

--Finding the External Links area of this page peculiarly sparse, I came to this Talk page. Reading all the backs and forths here about links leaves me with one over-riding impression: the discussion seems wholly focussed on playing an arbitrary game by arbitrary rules, rather than on the actual, real-life utility of this Wikipedia page to the general Wikipedia-using public--everyone is addressing Wikipedia criteria in a narrow, legalistic sense and not at all considering what the average visitor coming to this page might be looking for.

Even so, though, what are the actual Wikipedia "rules" that govern? The External Links page, summarized briefly--but fairly, I think--says:

External links should be kept to those that are meritable and appropriate to the article; later, "meritable" (meritorious) is summed as "useful, tasteful, informative, factual". Avoid linking to multiple pages from the same website. Good link candidates are: sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to amount of detail; and sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews. And that's what she wrote.

So, even briefer, External Links should be sites that: are appropriate to the topic, useful, tasteful, informative, and factual; and that contain material either too detailed to be integrated into the Wikipedia article or not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews.

As lengthy as the article page is, certainly no one is going to claim that it says all that there is to be said about science fiction, or even--I hope--that it says most of what there is to be said about science fiction. That being so, it is appropriate to link to other locations on the web that can augment a visitor's knowledge, understanding, and appreciation of science fiction beyond whatever levels this page reaches.

Consider that a visitor scrutinizing this page is unlikely to be someone already possessing a deep familiarity with the field; on the contrary, it is most likely that she or he wants and needs basic information (which is the goal of the page), and--following that--wants and needs pointers to other sources, which will dilate on what the article sets forth.

Think about that: that visitor does not need to be directed to a page overflowing with cover iamges and reviews of the very latest sf books, or a magazine that carries sf, or an sf forum or blog--those things come later in a developing appreciation, and by the time a visitor who has started here wants or needs those things, that visitor will be well able to find them. What those visitors want now, as they look over this page, is leads to places that go further into the basics of what sf is and how and why it can be appreciated, and probably to some lists of sound basic reading in the field.

Searching Google for "science fiction" literature is perhaps a good start. With some modest commonsense filtering, the top five links it gives us are:


 * the subject Wikipedia page - at #1, so we're on the right track
 * http://dmoz.org/Arts/Literature/Genres/Science_Fiction/ : dmoz, Arts: Literature: Genres: Science Fiction
 * http://www.adherents.com/lit/ : Religion in Literature, especially Science Fiction
 * http://greatsfandf.com/ : Great Science-Fiction &amp; Fantasy Works
 * http://www.lib.uoguelph.ca/help/guides/index.cfm?code=SciFiction : University of Guelph Library, guide to Science Fiction Literature

Starting from there, and skipping intermediate details of further research, here is one person's proposal for a Links section for the Wikipedia page (revised 28 November 2006):

References:


 * The Open Directory - Arts:Literature:Genres:Science Fiction
 * The Internet Speculative-Fiction Database
 * SFWA - "Suggested Reading" page
 * The Internet Book List - Science Fiction
 * The Locus Index to Science Fiction
 * The SF Site - site contents
 * Nebula Award Winners
 * SF Hub - for science fiction research
 * The Ultimate Science Fiction Web Guide
 * Classics of Science Fiction - lists and various breakdowns
 * Littera Scripta - reference works on collectible science fiction, fantasy, and horror

Criticism:


 * The Complete Review - science-fiction and fantasy
 * The Scriptorium - speculative-fiction author reviews
 * Great Science-Fiction &amp; Fantasy Works
 * Bookslut - the "Specfic Floozy" department

(Full disclosure: I am the webmaster of greatsfandf.com, on the merits and demerits of which I thus remain silent.)

Granted, that's a long list; but when Abraham Lincoln was teasingly asked how long a man's legs should be, he replied "Long enough to reach the ground." We are--or should be--operating on the theory that this is the visitor's first stop in his or her search.

Someone above demanded please state how each of the above links have relevance except to promote a site; does not the shoe go on the other foot? When a reasonably well-known site dealing in some detail with science-fiction literature is listed, is it not up to its detractors to demonstrate that it is not useful to a visitor seeking information on "science fiction"? That's the "relevance": utility.

So: Which of those are not appropriate to the topic, useful, tasteful, informative, factual? Which do not contain material either too detailed to be integrated into the Wikipedia article or not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews? Which, then, do not "deserve" to be in the list of places a newcomer to this topic should be sent to? And why?

I propose to edit that list into the article in a week or so if no credible objections are raised. Are there any? Owlcroft 04:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You need to provide reasons as to why we would insert hordes of spam into an article; Wikipedia is NOT a link farm. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 04:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

No, sir, I do not, because--as I think you understand well enough, your remarks notwithstanding--neither I nor anyone previously posting here suggest any such thing.

To be blunt, your position becomes tedious. Are we children, to bandy "is so/is not" back and forth across the schoolyard? The word "spam" is not a transformative magic wand that, merely by being waved at something, miraculously morphs that thing into the name. Links to responsible, useful resources do not become "spam" because some one person has an insufficient grasp of the definition of spam.

Reasons for including external links are set forth in some detail above--simply, clearly, and logically, I would say. If you disagree with one or more of those reasons, is it not incumbent on you to cite the reason with which you disagree, and to give some substantive argument against it? Those are the rules by which the grown-ups typically play the game.

Let me repeat the gist: utility. Wikipedia pages exist to provide information and guidance to those visitors who come to these pages seeking it. A visitor to the Wikipedia page "Science fiction" is most likely to be wanting and needing basic information (which is the goal of the page), and then--beyond what that one page can reasonably supply--to be wanting and needing pointers to other sources, which will dilate on what the article sets forth. It is that simple.

The posted Wikipedia policies on such links are readily summed: external Links should be sites that: are appropriate to the topic, useful, tasteful, informative, and factual; and that contain material either too detailed to be integrated into the Wikipedia article or not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews.

So, again, what is your argument? Which of those last two paragraphs do you disagee with? Which of the criteria for links--the logical or the policy--do you feel any of the suggested links fail? Which links? Why? Is your position simply that any external link whatever, in any Wikipedia article whatever, is "spam"? If so, say so in as many words; if not, set forth here something more than a chanted mantram. Owlcroft 12:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

"Science Fiction" and "SF" not synonymous?
Hi Hayford, Do you really think that SF and Science Fiction are not symonyms? I know that the term "science fiction" has been wildly inapproriate for many years now (as so much science fiction has nothing to do with science), so "SF" has been used as an ambiguous label that could also mean "speculative fiction". But is this really the way the term "SF" is used? I am sure that I use "SF" to mean exactly "Science Fiction". We have certainly said in our intro par that Science Fiction is often known as "sci-fi or SF", which implies to me that we can then use the terms interchangeably. Or should we change the intro to say often (mistakenly) known as "SF"? Just wondering. I don't know how other people might understand the term "SF", so I'm interested. Thanks heaps. Leeborkman 22:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not the one who made that particular change. To me, at least in the right context, they are synonyms.  But as I think I wrote in some other discussion, I myself hesitate to use them because I have seen it written as SF, as sf, as S.F. and as s.f.  I also hung out in San Francisco for many years, and that, of course, is also SF or S.F.  So I was an SF writer in SF.  I don't think it's worth saying often (mistakenly) known as "SF", however.  I don't care much for "sci-fi", but I don't go into spasms about it the way some people do.  I would sure hesitate to write an article in which I used "sci-fi" except to say that a lot of SF people don't like it.  As to SF, S.F., sf, or s.f., I suppose that S.F. is the one I myself would use.  But I'm sure not going to argue about it. Hayford Peirce 00:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ahh, who made the change? Let us know what your thinking is.  I think that the choice between SF, S.F., sf, and s.f. is basically stylistic. Do we use FBI or F.B.I.?  USA or U.S.A.?  I don't mind which of these we use, although I would prefer consistency across the whole of Wikipedia, but I would usually use SF just because I am lazy ;-)  Thanks. Leeborkman 01:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the change crept in at some point. Do with it what thou wilt.  And I suppose that "SF" is the shortest and simplest way to deal with the question.  I too wish that all of Wiki were consistent, but it ain't, sigh, and never will be.  Speaking of which, someone, also put in English 's instead of "s for some of the quotes.  Will you change them back, or will I try to train my cat to do it? Hayford Peirce 02:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, I'm a good British citizen myself (well, their Queen is my Queen), and I certainly use double-quotes for quoting! I'll see what I can do.  I'm meant to be working ;-)  Anyway, I'm just looking at the article history, and I see there has been a battle raging on a couple of fronts in the last few hours. I'll have to dig deeper to see what's been going on.  Back to "Science Fiction" and "SF"...  I am interested to hear if anyone actually makes a distinction between these any more, and if that distinction is still valuable.  I use them as synonyms, although the second is less formal.  In parctice, this means that I use "Science fiction" at the start of a paragraph, and then use SF in subsequent cases, rather than repeating "science fiction" again and again.  In a similar fashion, in an article on the Iraq War, I might talk about "President George W. Bush" at first, and then proceed to use the simpler "Bush" or "the President" as the text continues.  See ya. Leeborkman 02:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I made the change. SF and science fiction are not synonyms according to the article which says "The use of SF is not unambiguous, however....". I wouldn't normally worry, but since the article is being picky about what is, and is not, science fiction, the use of an abbreviation that could mean something else (in the same context) is slipshod. Notinasnaid 08:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I can assure everyone that SF (and its lower-case and punctuated variants) has been a common abbreviation for science fiction in the 40-plus years I've been writing about the genre, starting in college and grad school, continuing through scholarly articles and reference-work pieces, right up to next month's review column for Locus. House styles might prefer one or another, but there's never been any serious ambiguity about the meaning. In some critical discussions it has been suggested (mostly as a talking point) that SF could be seen to stand for "speculative fiction" or even "structural fabulation," but these are part of the definition discussion that has been going on for nearly 70 years. All we need to do is decide on our house style for the article (assuming there's no obscure and idiosyncratic Wiki decree to the contrary), set it up early in the first paragraph, and use it. My horseback opinion as a journalist working the field is SF (the current Locus practice), but that's just me. Just as long as we don't use "sci-fi," which annoys the logocentric traditionalists, myself included. RLetson 04:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Righto. I think standardization of style is the most important point. A nice review of the Heinlein-Spider book by the way -- it will keep me from actually having to buy it.  It's amazing how many stick-in-your-throat stylizisms Heinlein could get away with.... Hayford Peirce 04:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Why should we use sf over sci-fi, sci-fi its self is less amigious then sf.. so explain.. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The term sci-fi has an established association with science fiction of the more or less space opera kind. Kdammers 09:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Has SF not established its self as literiture though? Either way we dont need to turn the article into abriv. hell when the title is science fiction. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Now now, I don't want to hear you guys talking that way about the man who gave us "Spung!" Leeborkman 05:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "but these are part of the definition discussion that has been going on for nearly 70 years." Exactly. This is not an article in Locus or a taught presentation. This is writing about the heart of this debate, and therefore requires more precision than other contexts where it can indeed be taken for granted. Otherwise when you arrive later on, having used SF throughout, you suddenly encounter the view that SF doesn't mean what we have been using it to mean. In just the same way, 99% of the time people can talk about "salt" but once we start talking in the context of "salts", it is necessary to use "sodium chloride" instead. Context is everything, and precision is surely an aim of Wikipedia. Separate issue: I think a debate on "science fiction" vs. "science-fiction" would be useful: I realise I have contributed to this unnecessary mix-up. Notinasnaid 08:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that some readers will find it annoying, "sci-fi" has register problems: it is too informal or colloquial for an encyclopedia, and while it is perhaps the more familiar term for a particular audience segment (younger and/or non-print SF fans), it does not offer any logical or descriptive advantage outside a discussion of the demographics and sociology of naming conventions. There is some stylistic/writerly advantage to using an abbreviation, and we have only to settle on one. Or none. The Clute & Nicholls Encyclopedia (UK/Australian editors) uses "sf" throughout; the 5th edition of Barron's Anatomy of Wonder and Tymn and Ashley's Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Weird Fiction Magazines use "SF"; others use no abbreviations at all. I re-emphasize the point that the choice of abbreviation (or no abbreviation) is not a major issue in general discussions of the field--it is an editorial and stylistic choice. If there appear to be consistency problems, as Notinasnaid suggests, then edit the copy to reflect the situation--in my not-at-all-uninformed view, the "SF isn't really SF any more" kinds of arguments are peripheral to a general description of the history and nature of the genre and ought to be treated as asides in the conversation, not major topics of discussion. Most of us, like Damon Knight, know what SF is when it is pointed to. On reflection, maybe it's a strategic error to think of this article as "defining" SF--instead, maybe the appropriate verb is "to map," signalling an attempt to describe an area of cultural production (to steal a term from my younger academic colleagues) that does not yield easily to standard genus-and-species definition. This has come up before (see the archived discussions). RLetson 18:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi RL, I like the idea of steering away from a direct definition. My first thoughts when I looked into this page some weeks back was to start with the bald statement that "science fiction" defies easy definition, with the two annoying-but-true quotes "sf is what sf writers write" and "sf is what we point to when we say sf" as illustration.  Then make some very broad attempt at a definition anyway (like the one we have right now), but using the preliminary warning as a kind of disclaimer.  Then, as you say, a rough "map" of the field to give the reader an idea of the kind of works we are talking about (I think that that is what the current quotes from SF writers is largely aiming to show). btw, it's good to talk with a couple of real practitioners like you and Hayford.  Thanks. Leeborkman 06:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If someone could dig up good references for those two quotes, then I would like to get them into the opening paragraph ASAP. Anyone? Leeborkman 06:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

We're back to basics here--rhetorical/logical basics, that is. I have argued that SF is not a genre that yields easily to strict logical definition (in fact, few literary genres do), and that in the culture at large "science fiction" does not only refer to literary or even narrative works (which I would argue should be the immediate focus of attention here) but to a body of motifs, images, tropes, products, and even habits of thought ("That's an idea right out of science fiction"). If that is the case, then an opening section needs to establish which aspect of "science fiction" is under examination here, direct readers to the ones that are not (gaming, toys, films, comics, theme parks, whatever), and proceed to map and explain whatever it is that we are dealing with. I do not see this approach as constituting the dreaded "original research"--it is a necessary adjustment to a state of affairs apparent to anyone familiar with the whole range of history, criticism, and commentary that the field has generated over 70-some years. The fact that a series of editors has struggled so long and hard to establish a single definition of "science fiction" suggests that the problem is not quite the same as one sees with controversial hot-button topics where people just can't ever agree (though there seems to have been a bit of that, too). Maybe the article title should be "Science fiction (literature)," which would limit the topic and permit pointers to related non-literary articles. At the very least, we should acknowledge that narrative SF operates in slightly different ways in different media, with different terminological preferences ("sci-fi" raises no hackles in TV/film) and even different standards of "excellence" (you don't hear a lot about "hard SF" in the TV/film community, but it can be a kind of praise in the literary world). That's what I mean about mapping--it's not a matter of defining so much as establishing relationships and explaining differences and similarities.

This means some major restructuring, but not as much as you'd think, and I'd argue that it makes the rest of the job easier, since the foundation would be solid. I have recommended this sort of thing before, but just look at the Clute & Nicholls Encyclopedia entry on "Definitions of SF" and the equivalent section of Wolfe's Critical Terms for Science Fiction and Fantasy (pp. 108 ff) and you'll see what I mean about the range of definitions possible. I think the current "Prominent authors define 'science fiction'" section offers one way of approaching this tangle. Add to that a representative selection of scholarly definitions and you've given readers a rough and necessarily partial map of the territory. The "Science fiction and ---" sections are also useful if what we're doing here is mapping a territory. It's crucial to remember that literary genres are not static, that they are the result of interactions between creators and audiences (that's not original research, either), and that most of us are old enough to have seen the adaptive process in action in our lifetimes. But enough for now. I hope some of this is of use. RLetson 17:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

extradimensional redirects
extradimensional redirects to here, I am going to revert it to the Kaluza-Klein theory if that is all right with everyone. If not change it to the way it was and scold me.

Compound modifiers -- science-fiction writers write science fiction
That's the way the New York Times handles it and that's good enough for me. Hayford Peirce 15:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Science fiction and Failed history
There is a certain overlap if "someone" cares to develop the idea in either article - the "science" that was found not to be the case: examples would be "habitable Venus", extrapolations from present technology/failure to predict potential developments (the Internet and science fiction) and timescales that proved not to be the case. Jackiespeel 17:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

English-language bias
As someone seems to have noticed above, writers in languages other than English are not referenced very often in this article; SF is different in France, Poland, and Japan from in America (actually, it's different between the UK and the US, which doesn't especially seem to have been noted, either).

For one thing, Japanese SF blurs the line between fantasy and SF, sometimes beyond recognition. This may be because, though not particularly religious, the majority of the Japanese are certainly not reductionist materialists, like Heinlein was. Polish SF, and Eastern European SF in general, is usually more philosophical, while that from France is, like a great many other French works, very ideologically and philosophically charged.

Shouldn't it also be noted that many, if not most, SF fans regard the whole "Scifi/SF" thing as obsolete? Most modern fans, regardless of the subgenre they prefer, use the two interchangeably, or use whichever they happen to prefer; it can be a serious breach of fandom etiquette to criticize the use of the alternate term. SF may have a slight advantage on the Net because...it's shorter. Forty percent as many letters can be a serious consideration for a person who posts on 62 fan forums a day. 71.223.34.127 18:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Lacking a polyglot readership--or editorial pool--it's hard to see how one might avoid an Anglophone bias. It would be interesting to have an article on the differences in science fiction across cultures, but I don't see that happening here. On the perennially-hot topic of sci-fi, 71.223.34.127's "modern fans" seems to translate as "fans under 30 whose experience of science fiction is biased in favor of television, movies, and comics." This is a demographic/subcultural divide, not an ancient/modern one--personally, I feel quite modern despite my dodgy knees, trifocals, and personal recollection of reading ASF when it was still Astounding. RLetson 19:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Short of finding some articles or books that specifically contrast Anglo-Saxon SF (as the French would call it) from that of other cultures and that could be used as reference, then almost anything that the editors add is probably gonna be that dreaded Original Research. For instance, if I wrote: "French SF generally places more emphasis on personal reactions to changes in the world around the main characters than does most American SF," someone would be sure to revert it as being either unsourced or Original Research.  In any case, the only French SF I've ever read was so lousy that it's not worth writing about.  My French wife probably read 500 SF books -- but they were all translations from "the English" or from "the American", as French books are always careful to note.... Hayford Peirce 22:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Is this really a problem? I mean, does it particularly matter which writers we reference in the article?  As long as we don't say that the true Science Fiction is that which is practised in the American style, then what is the problem?  We could certainly note any substantiated international differences (if indeed there is any substantiation).  I would actually guess that there is actually no significant difference, and that the perceived diifference is due to the fact that we see so much more American SF, while the only non-English SF we see is the most notable (and therefore not necessarily representative of the non-English mainstream).  In other words, we just don't ever see the bulk of mainstream non-English SF, which is very likely just like the bulk of mainstream American SF.  That's just my starting hypothesis ;-)  Anyways, if we are going to explicitly list notable examples of SF, then it should certainly include Lem, Strugatski, Perry Rhodan, Verne - is that so difficult to accomplish?  Leeborkman 23:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Naw, it would be easy, as you say, to merely reference other writers, also various series -- as I recall, there used to be several French publishing houses that ground out SF books regularly, just the way they had monthly publishing schedules of espionage, "gentleman justicier (Saint-like)", adventure, etc. etc. Pure pulp, long after it disappeared in America.  I thought the guy was asking for more literary type analysis.  On the other hand, why bother?  Does the Mystery article (or Detective Story, or whatnot) mention that mystery stories are written and published in many different languages.  I don't think so -- it's exclusively about English-language stuff.  (Without, however, taking into account India, which surely has its own publishing industry.)  Just because it isn't done in the Mystery article, of course, doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done in the SF article, but I still question its worth.  Beyond saying something like: "Lem and Verne have contributed greatly, while Perry Rhodan has a wide readership in Germany, and organized SF fandom exists in many countries." Hayford Peirce 23:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I would have to disagree with HP. German SF, for example, is far more than PR.  It has a history of sorts going back  over a century (including at least one significant author) even if we exclude the marvelous ETA Hoffmann.  But more than that, the '90s in Germany produced a number of significant, popular SF works.  (Whether the news of these books got to Anglophone ears, I don't know.  But Wik is not designed to cater to ignorance.)  Or take Russia/the Soviet Union.  From We to the Strugastky brothers, there are a number of acknowledged greats.  Just because pulp SF came of age and flourished in the U.S. and scientific romances  of leading quality came from Britain,doesn't mean the article should ignore the rest of SF. (What of it goes into the "History of SF" article and what in SF proper is a different kind of issue that I'm not addressing here.) Kdammers 01:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC) P.S.:  There are a number of German works that look at SF theoretically and give their takes on  such points as American SF.


 * I don't think anyone is saying that we should actively ignore non-English SF. If there is something notable and substantiated to say, then say it.  The really interesting question we are skirting around is "Is there something signficantly different about non-English SF that warrants special mention?"  I theorise that there is not, and that our perceptions of non-English SF are inevitably misleading, given that we actually see a highly selective fraction of it.  Thanks. Leeborkman 02:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Hypehantion
Noticed the back and forth on hyphenation. Perhaps you'll allow an English teacher (and SF fan) to weigh in. Hayford Peirce is correct (at least based on his edit summaries; I haven't gone through the actual corrections): when used as a compound modifier (in this case, "science-fiction" to modify "film" or "actor" or "book"), it is properly hyphenated. When simply "science fiction" (where they act as a noun), typically it is not hyphenated, although you'll see some old school examples where this isn't the case. (Think 19th century literature.) Take a gander here for more. --EEMeltonIV 20:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Have gone through edits, and Hayford Peirce is correct. --EEMeltonIV 21:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I too agree, though you may not think so from my reversions. The reason I revert it to the original is because this was the topic of some heated discussion before and it should therefore be discussed here before being changed.  I don't get why people can be so anal about hypenating things or other such (to me) trivial changes, but people are strange creatures :) My suggestion: I won't revert it again, but if someone else does, get them to explain why they resist the change.  If they don't revert it, well then there isn't a problem now, is there? -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 21:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Some people get anal about language because they're editors or writers or teachers. Not trying to be snotty, but those of us who use words for a living find these matters non-trivial. And Wiki culture notwithstanding, I don't see the need for extensive discussion of standard usage. (BTW, "hypehantion" is almost a pun--if only the typo had been "hype-nation.")RLetson 02:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, WD, describing people as "anal" is getting more than a little discourteous, but to understand why people get worked up about these things you just have to consider that this is a would-be encyclopedia we are all jointly writing. As a matter of pride and inclination, many of us are interested in doing this job as well as we possibly can.  That doesn't just mean that the content should be true, informative, verifiable, etc, but it also means that all the big and little things to do with language, style, etc, are done to the best of our ability.  For many people involved in the Wikipedia project, this is a great part of the challenge.  What an experiment!  We mix in people who are knowledgeable about various subjects with those who are fans with those who are fanatics with those who are writers with those who are vandals, and so on, and the end result is something to rival the Encyclopedia Britannica.  So don't go putting down all those "anal" people who work so hard at polishing this or any other article - a little polish might just be the thing that distinguishes Wikipedia from your average Junior High School book report. Leeborkman 02:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This not a "would-be" encyclopedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.  The facts that it is an innovation and is dynamic do not make it not an encyclopedia.  Hu 04:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Hu. I was attempting to make my point rhetorically by implying that the standards that certainly apply to a "would-be" encyclopedia apply a fotiori to an actual encyclopedia.  See ya. Leeborkman 05:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty convinced that the adjectival form usually doesn't include a hyphen. Metamagician3000 03:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, YOU may be pretty convinced of it, but the New York Times and various other style-books aren't. It may be INCORRECTLY used more often than not, but that doesn't make it right. If 50,000 Wikipedians declare that "ain't" is correct usage, does that mean we should let "isn't" be replaced by "ain't" in articles throughout Wikipedia? Hayford Peirce 04:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[De-indent.] Dogmatism about these issues doesn't help. It still looks to me as if, within the field, the adjectival form is usually either just "science fiction" or is an abbreviation such as "SF". Thus, the leading writers' organisation calls itself "Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, Inc."; the leading academic organisation devoted to the study of the subject calls itself "the Science Fiction Research Association"; the leading academic journal is Science Fiction Studies (it is some years since it dropped the hyphen in its name). The Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors gives only "science fiction" and makes no distinction between the substantive and adjectival forms. I'd be interested to see how the Oxford English Dictionary itself handles the issue. I don't see the relevance of the particular house style adopted by the New York Times. Every newspaper has its own house style on a host of issues; there is no reason for Wikipedia to follow one of them in particular. That said, I see that Science Fiction Studies itself sometimes has "science-fiction" as an adjective. I think that should carry more weight, and it is almost enough to sway me to use the hyphen after all (it might get me over the line if it turns out that this is actually policy at SFS, despite its own name, rather than simply deferring to the choices of contributors; however, there is nothing in the SFS style guide). I seriously doubt that there is a correct and an "INCORRECT" (as you shouted it) form. There is simply variation in what people consider good style. I don't feel strongly one way or the other about what we do here, but simply reported my sense that the adjectival form usually doesn't include the hyphen. Metamagician3000 04:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It's late to be adding to this, but so be it. There are few if any recognized guides that do not agree with the proposition that compound modifiers require hyphenation (save when the first term is an adverb); it is not a matter of Peter says this and Paul says that.  The point is not keeping Miss Thistlebottom happy, but clarity: unhyphenated compounds can at times be ambiguous (there is a difference between a fast sailing ship and a fast-sailing ship), so the rule is to use the hyphen to show when the words are to be taken as a single thought, not as their individual selves; and a rule is not a rule unless it is applied always and ever, not just "when it's needed".


 * (Thus--recognizing clarity as the goal--hyphenation is sometimes needed even when the compound is a simple noun, as there is a definite difference between, for example, a dancing girl and a dancing-girl.)


 * We also should remember that proper names are just that proper: they are whatever their owners--whose grasp of English form is unknowable--say they are (many organizational and business names, for example, omit an apostrophe where no English manual ever written would permit it in ordinary prose). Organizational names, being thus idiosyncratic, are not a satisfactory guide to proper usage.Owlcroft 11:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Technology not yet invented
The paragraph "Technology not yet invented" mentions "Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea" wrt. submarines. But those were invented earlier, as the article on that book states.


 * At the time 20,000 Leagues was published, submarines were little more than tin cans. Nemo's sub was a major technological advance.  Even today, how many subs have a pipe organ? Rick Norwood 13:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * After reading History_of_submarines I must say I find calling Verne's Nautilus "new" quite a stretch. Your other point is good though, and I find myself longing for a bright future with organ-powered submarines.--Niels E 17:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The first science fiction - 180 AD!?
Can we consider the "True History" of the Greek satirist Lucian to be a forerunner, precursor, proto-form of the Science Fiction genre? Can he get the credit for being the very first SF writer?

* Summary: http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/LucianSamosata.htm * http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~loxias/vera_historia01.htm
 * See history of science fiction. Notinasnaid 08:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

To my mind, True History is in the spirit of SF but doesn't fully fit the bill. I think it is a legitimate precursor. Consider, for example, how Swift used it in GT. Kdammers 09:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Gaming
There should definately be a paragraph on scifi gaming: video, board, card, etc. I would suggests that apart from novels, science fiction is being propelled furthest through computer games. Homeworld, Fallout, Freespace, you know what I'm talking about. 18:26, 2 December 2006 UTC Tubby

External links redux
I have previously (04:11, 27 November 2006 UTC) posted, under the "SFF Portals" heading, at some length about external links, and stated my intention, absent any substantive objections, to edit a proposed list in after some time. I am here making a new header, to be as sure as I can that this is seen, considering the intensity of the debate on this page over this matter. I have so far received only one post in reply, objecting on grounds that seem to me defective; I replied at some length to that post, and have seen nothing further since. I propose to make the change Monday evening (Pacific Time), unless some other objections come in over the weekend. This seems to me an awful lot of fuss over what one would think ought to be rather uncontroversial, but the history is there to read. The exact changes I propose, and my reasoning, can be found in the later parts of the "SFF Portals" heading. Owlcroft 11:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't think any of the links you propose are necessary. WP:EL says that a link should not be included just because it would be useful or relevant.  The Locus website, for example, could be legitimately linked from the WP article on Locus; and indeed it is.  There's no need to link to it from here.  If Locus needs to be mentioned in this article (and it probably does) the link should point to the WP article, not to the Locus website.


 * A similar argument applies to almost everything on your list. Magazine websites should be linked from the magazine articles; Worldcon should be linked from the Worldcon article.  Websites such as SFSite are either notable, in which case they deserve their own article and a link from that article, or they are not, in which case they don't deserve a link from here.


 * There are three possible types of site that could be supported by an appeal to WP:EL. One is a general bulletin-board/forum site; if there is one that is clearly the main one everyone uses.  In fact I don't think there is such a site -- there is surely a market leader but I doubt everyone could agree on which site to include.  The second is a collection of reviews; again, if there were a single site that contained such things, and no other significant ones, you might legitimately link to it, but I don't think that's the case.  Finally, you could link to a directory of SF links.  This is something I do think is worth doing; and WP:EL explicitly says this is the way to bring in external links.  For example, the Google SF directory could be linked to, though I'm sure there are better ones. Even if there were a WP article about SF portals specifically, these links would not be necessary -- a link to a directory would be the right answer in that case too.  Mike Christie (talk) 13:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that by that line of reasoning, virtually nothing should ever be linked anywhere, which I much doubt was or is the intent.

Instead of hand-waving in the general direction of the WP:EL, it might be useful to consider the actual relevant text from it, verbatim:

Each link [should] be considered on its merits, using the following guidelines.

What should be linked to

1. [inapplicable for this article]

2. [inapplicable for this article]

3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons. [emphasis added]

4. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews. [emphasis added]

OK, what is the interpretation of the words "what should be linked to" that does not support the idea that what should be linked to is material that is "neutral and accurate", "that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to amount of detail", and that "is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews"? That all seems--to me--extremely clear. Do I have to resort to quoting a dictionary as to the meaning of the word should? Consider also:

There are several things which should be considered when adding an external link.

<tt>* Is it accessible to the reader?</tt>

<tt>* Is it proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)?</tt>

<tt>* Is it a functional link, and likely to continue being a functional link?</tt>

Continuing, which of the proposed link targets is supposedly not material that is:


 * "neutral and accurate",
 * "that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to amount of detail",
 * that "is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews",
 * that is "accessible to the reader",
 * that is "useful, tasteful, informative, and factual", or
 * that is "a functional link likely to continue being a functional link"?

Meanwhile, let's also look at what the WP:EL expressly deprecates and whether it applies to any of the proposed sites:


 * sites not providing unique resources beyond what the article would contain once it becomes a Featured article - nope, none of those;


 * sites that mislead the reader with factually inaccurate material - nope, none of those;


 * links mainly intended to promote a website - redundant, subsumed by the first and last points here;


 * sites that primarily exist to sell products or services - nope, none of those;


 * sites with objectionable amounts of advertising - sure don't think so;


 * sites that require payment - nope, none of those;


 * sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users - nope, none of those;


 * documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view - nope, none of those;


 * search engine results pages - nope, none of those;


 * social networking sites - nope, none of those;


 * personal websites - nope, none of those;


 * wikis - nope, none of those; and finally,


 * sites only indirectly related to the article's subject - nope, none of those, either.

Ok, there it all is in plain English direct from the horse's mouth: the proposed sites all meet the criteria for should and none of them meet any criterion for shouldn't. I hate to keep repeating the same things anew in each posting, but really, now, the words of the WP:EL are about as plain as plain can be. As I keep saying, if there are objections to particular sites on the proposed list, someone please explain--with sufficient particularity to make dialogue (as opposed to hand-waving) possible--which site supposedly fails which WP:EL criterion and in what way. Thank you.

Owlcroft 01:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I am impressed by the work you're putting in to make your argument, but I'm afraid I'm unconvinced. A couple of quick points first:
 * There has already been a discussion of external links (as opposed to portals) and the consensus was that no external links were needed. That discussion is at Talk:Science_fiction, above.
 * You comment that according to my reasoning, "virtually nothing should ever be linked anywhere, which I much doubt was or is the intent". In fact I believe that the intent of WP:EL is to significantly limit links -- this is subject to debate of course but it seems unambiguous to me.  You also comment (in the prior section) that "When a reasonably well-known site dealing in some detail with science-fiction literature is listed, is it not up to its detractors to demonstrate that it is not useful to a visitor seeking information on "science fiction"?"  My answer is no; the onus is on the editor who wishes to add a site to show that it meets WP:EL.
 * I should say that the majority of the links you give are of sites that are worth linking to somewhere in Wikipedia. My objection is not to there being a link ever, it's to the link being from this article.  In the great majority of cases, the right place for a link is from the article about the website or organization in question.
 * To take one specific example, your list includes a link to a website listing the Nebula Award winners. Supposing that we agree this information should be linked to from the main SF article, why should we link to an external website when there's a perfectly good Nebula Awards article, which includes links to lists of winners in each category?
 * I believe an identical argument applies to everything on your list. Exceptions might be sites that don't seem valuable enough for a WP article (I have my doubts about Specfic Floozy, for example), and, as I said earlier, one web directory. Mike Christie (talk) 13:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Harking back to that earlier discussion, it seems to me that the crux is:

"The only criterion in Wikipedia:External links that seems likely to apply to this article is the last one: "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as textbooks or reviews." Even there I think more than one (representative) site is unnecessary. This article is not an entire encyclopedia of sf in itself; it's just the main article from which many others will be linked."

The first sentence repeats what I have been saying, but I disagree with the balance. I do agree that significant articles logically falling directly under this one should be linked in preference to external sources, and the observation about the Nebulas is a sound one--plus it is what I have been pleading for, one addressed to a particular candidate link on a definite ground, and I concur with it. Indeed, I have added to the "See Also" section a link to the particular subsection of the WP article on "online databases" pertaining to the ISFDB, but labelled the link "On-line s.f. databases" in that that subsection also cites Locus and some others; and I have thus removed the proposed link to those two and to the Internet Book List (which then becomes duplicative).

That said, I still think more generally that we once again see a turning away from the likely interests and needs of visitors to this page and toward instead the tastes and fancies of editors and the parliamentary exercises that seem to fascinate them.

For example, to say of review sites that "more than one (representative) site is unnecessary" simply takes my breath away. Assuming, as a threshold matter, that we are discussing sites that try to take a merit-based survey of the field as a whole--as opposed to reviews of every new thing that comes along--it is indeed breathtaking to suppose that there is such a thing as one representative site (unless we assume that all reviewers always and ever have substantially identical opinions and insights, an idea needing no further comment).

True, "this article is not an entire encyclopedia of sf in itself"; but does not that in itself strongly suggest that the visitor here needs links that do expand to encyclopedic scope? Moreover, it means that the links from this article should be as correspondingly high-level as this article is, not particularized--as links from lower-level articles necessarily must be. That there is an extant WP article on the Nebulas is, as I said, germane; but to go from that fact to "I believe an identical argument [presumably that a WP article exists] applies to everything on your list" seems an amazing leap. I look at the article's list of Wikipedia cross-references (See Also) and do not see articles that correspond to the (now-revised list of) proposed links.

My objection is not to there being a link ever, it's to the link being from this article. In the great majority of cases, the right place for a link is from the article about the website or organization in question.

I have addressed that as to the databases. But I wonder what reasonably high-level articles might cover the others. There is indeed a WP article on the SF Site, but that seems out of keeping with the other "See Also" entries, in that they are all topics rather than particular resources--or perhaps that list should be somewhat subdivided and somewhat expanded? (By the bye, as I type, the supposed over-arching link listed as "Genres, subcategories, and topics related to science fiction" leads to nothing, not terribly helpful to visitors.)

Since this page is become enormous anyway, let me repeat the (here slightly modified) candidate list, as it might appear when implemented (save that I have put in some blank lines here to indicate sub-categories that I do not think need be broken out in the actual list):

* The Open Directory - some human-selected s.f. links * The Ultimate Science Fiction Web Guide - encyclopedic (but obsolescent) s.f. links list * The SF Site (site contents) - broad, general s.f. reference * SF Hub - resources for science-fiction research * Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America - "Suggested Reading" page * Classics of Science Fiction - lists, with various breakdowns * The Complete Review - reviews of select speculative-fiction authors and works * The Scriptorium - reviews of eminent speculative-fiction authors * Great Science-Fiction & Fantasy Works - lists and reviews of select authors * Littera Scripta - reference works on collectible speculative fiction

The Littera Scripta page might be replaced by a Wikipedia article on collecting science fiction (and be linked from there), but I can find no such article at present (and am not qualified to start one). The SF Site has, as noted above, a WP article, but not one that seems at present appropriate for the "See Also" list. Aside from those two, I do not see: one, that any of these are subsumed in any extant or likely article under the one at issue; two, that any of them is in any least violation of the WP principles I quoted most extensively earlier; or three, that any of them would not be highly utile to a newcomer wanting to know about science fiction.

To my mind, that last is the paramount consideration, and one we should never lose sight of. The purpose of external links is to supplement the content of a page with material not conveniently or obviously available elsewhere on Wikipedia and which meets the WP standards for external references. We are not, I dearly hope, lawyers haggling over a contract: "See, it says so right there in Clause 17, paragraph C, section iv, part m, seventh sentence." That a link to some useful, high-level resource might, by the WP-knowledgeable, eventually manage to be traced out by following some links chain starting from the main WP "Science fiction" page is very far from saying that that resource has been made reasonably available to the visitor to that page who is seeking a high-level overview of science fiction.

Note that the relatively small list--5 sites--of what amounts to "suggested reading" links is, so far as I know, comprehensive as to sites that suggest science-fiction reading on a reasonably selective and decidely non-fancruft basis. Is inclusion of such resources in the top WP article on science fiction inappropriate? How and why would one justify a Yes answer to that? By saying that it is unwise or inappropriate to point visitors to guides to the better works in the field? Say what?

So, to re-re-repeat myself: what on that list either expressly violates any of the extensively and exactly quoted WP:EL criteria or is not likely to be well useful to a visitor to the page seeking general, high-level knowledge of science fiction?

(And I also repeat the newly raised thought: should the "See Also" section be subdivided and/or expanded?)

Owlcroft 02:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree some external links would be useful. The criterion "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as textbooks or reviews", IMO, is specifically in favor of sites like SF Site. I am not certain about all the links recommended, but I do think a line-by-line review is more appropriate and that six to twelve links would be useful. I think the SF Lovers site is uniquely important because of its historical significance. Regardless of any previous discussion, it should be noted that consensus changes over time. Avt tor 15:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Your point about wikilawyering is fair; I'm not trying to follow the letter of WP:EL, but what I see as the spirit. Evidently we don't agree on that, so let's see what we can do about finding a compromise.  Starting with the review sites, my concern is that there are a variety of gradually less professional sites that include reviews of SF.  It's hard for me to see where we would draw the line.  We could arbitrarily limit ourselves to three, or five, such sites; and in lieu of a better way to do it perhaps that's a good approach.  With some method of avoiding link creep, I'd be much more comfortable about some of these links.


 * So can I suggest that you go ahead and edit the article to include whatever review sites you feel should be included from the list you give, and any other sources? Then we can click through, look at them, and debate each on its merits.  I would also like to have your opinion on the best way to limit the list -- shall we say three sites that do reviews?  Or can you think of a more objective criterion? Mike Christie (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I have finally pulled the trigger. I added, pursuant to the request above, the SF Lovers site, though it is--as the amended text has it--historical and not historic, which is not merely a fine point of usage but a question of whether historicity suffices; but it's there.  I'd still like to find a way that fits the existing patterns to link the WP article on the SF Site, but--as noted earlier--it doesn't sit comfortably in the internal-links list.Owlcroft 07:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I have restored the Locus site. It is widely acknowledged as one of the best references of science fiction awards, as well as being an excellent reference on science fiction literature generally. It is particularly useful for keeping up with anything new going on. The best online review site is SF Site. It has twice been nominated for a Hugo for Best Web Site. A Google search on "science fiction" shows it in the top five links.

I'm not sure all the other sites recently added are noteworthy, in terms of how widely used they are, how comprehensive they are, how long-standing or broadly-based they are, etc. Avt tor 17:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I am leaving things alone, but the Locus site, while indeed worthy, is subsumed by the See Also link to "On-line science-fiction databases". And the SF Site is also indeed worthy, but, as there is an extant WP article on it, that article ought properly to be the link--but the whole See Also section is categories, not places, so it would be somewhat out of place with what's there now.


 * Incidentally, the top link at See Also--Main article: Genres, subcategories, and topics related to science fiction--remains nonexistent.


 * As a more general observation en passant, the whole category Science Fiction seems very much to have jes' growed, in that there seems no overarching logical structure to the sub- and sub-sub articles.Owlcroft 04:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Definitions
I've started List of definitions of science fiction, which may interest some here. Mike Christie (talk) 23:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I like this approach--it takes the pressure off this article to produce a perfect definition. In fact, it demonstrates that there is no single, short, universally-accepted definition, and leaves this article with the more manageable task of mapping the field of narratives (or even of written narratives) that is called "science fiction." If we can point to articles on "definitions," "history," "subgenres," "movies," "television programs," and so on, we don't have to try to cram detailed accounts of all that into this small space. RLetson 06:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Science fiction template
I've just made a new science fiction template Science fiction, modelled from the Fantasy. Hope it's useful. - Malkinann 22:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject? and table of contents
The organization of this article seems strange and unfocused. There seems to be a lot of contention. Seems like this would benefit from a Wikiproject, i.e. a focused group to seek consensus, draft page, maintain a consistent tone, etc. The wikiproject would take responsibility for articles tagged with the sf template or related templates.

If I were writing this from scratch, I'd come up with a table of contents like


 * 1) What is science fiction?
 * 2) Definitions
 * 3) Related genres and subgenres
 * 4) History of science fiction
 * 5) Ideas in science fiction
 * 6) Tropes (should all lead to their own articles)
 * 7) Jargon (again, needs references, shouldn't be hard to find)
 * 8) Great works of science fiction (books)
 * 9) Major science fiction authors (not more than fifty, should be multiple-Hugo winners, should pretty much all have linked articles)
 * 10) Science fiction in media
 * 11) Films
 * 12) Television
 * 13) Anime, etc.
 * 14) Fandom
 * 15) Conventions
 * 16) Fanzines
 * 17) See also
 * 18) References
 * 19) External links

I'm not clear why "Notes" and "References" are separated into two sections, especially for an article not really written by academic standards (i.e. where each referenced work only refers to a small number of notes).

IMO the goal of creating a "good" article is worthwhile. This will require rewrites, which are better discussed before being posted into the article, hence the call for a wikiproject, IMO.Avt tor 18:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That is an excellent idea. I have a few comments on the proposed TofC, but will hold them for now so that discussion here may focus on getting the Project going.Owlcroft 10:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Alternate future
Just letting the editors of this article know that there is a discussion on Talk:Alternate future about the encyclopedicness of that article that I think editors of science fiction might be interested in participating in. &mdash;Lowellian (reply) 20:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Science fiction and fantasy essay
The section on science fiction and fantasy is very long, subjective, and the commentary is unsourced (except for a couple of minor details). Avt tor 14:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

List of online speculative fiction magazines?
What do you think, is it a sound idea to create a list of online speculative fiction magazines, including such sites as strangehorizons.com and distantworlds.net? I mean list of active sites, regularly publishing new short stories on-site. Perhaps, even accepting submissions. It's not quite easy to find such resourses, but they form an alive "culture layer" of modern scifi, imho. ellol 12:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If it is online then how is it a magazine....? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 12:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * At least SH sais it's "a weekly online magazine of science fiction, fantasy..." ellol 13:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Etymologically, "magazine" is a reference to the fact that something is a collection, not a publication. Hence a "magazine" of ammunition, the French word "magasin" referring to a collection of goods, i.e. a store, or a newsmagazine show, which is a magazine presented through the media of radio or television. Avt tor 04:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have just found that such a list already exists at google. So there's no need to invent a bicycle by ourselves, imho. I added the line to the External links:
 * List of science fiction and fantasy E-zines
 * ellol 13:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleted material
The material by an anon editor which Lee reverted out actually looks good to me, if it could be sourced. I'll put it here, in case it comes in handy, and thank whoever did it for their work - just find some kindof source for the assertions made : "A common characteristic of science fiction is that it is set in the future, or that it refers to fictional worlds more technologically advanced than present-day earth. One exception to this rule is the alternate history story, which is often classed as science fiction although it may be set in the present (or even the past) on a supposed parallel time-track. There are also works set in our own world of the present-day that may be considered science fiction, although in such cases there can be a blurring with other branches of speculative fiction, such as horror (e.g. The X-Files) or the techno-thriller (e.g. Jurassic Park)." Metamagician3000 03:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Reversing the polarity/reverse the polarity
The above lead to a Third Doctor Who article - when the term appears "fairly regularly" in science fiction, being a piece of non-science/nonsense.

Can "someone" do an article on the topic with a link to the DW article rather than a mere redirect. Jackiespeel 15:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)