Talk:Science fiction on television

Old talk
The history of US TV sci-fi here really does need expanding, in comparison to the British TV sci-fi section which I fleshed out a while back... I couldn't do the same with the US section because I don't know anything near as much about it. Is there anyone out there who can beef it up? Angmering 15:13, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, seeing as nobody else had, I did some research and wrote a US TV sci-fi section myself. It doesn't have as much context and background at the UK one, but I think I've had a fair stab at it. The downside is the page is now 38kb long as opposed to the recommended 32, but there isn't really much more that could really be added to it, so I don't see it growing to any more than this.Angmering 15:19, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've added a fairly substantial history of British TV sci-fi and re-written most of the rest of the entry. However, US TV sci-fi isn't really my area so the coverage of that is a bit sparse at the moment! Angmering.

I have used "UFO Television Series" as a wiki name as I don't really want it to link to UFO page. What are people's thoughts?

The list of programs here needs to be merged with the list of science fiction television. --Brion VIBBER

Why is this at"Science fiction on television" when every link is to Science fiction television which is a redirect. Rmhermen 00:08, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

That's interesting... I'm almost positive it wasn't like that a few hours ago. Has someone moved it, or am I just going mad? Angmering.

Very long (but informative) article, but I was a little surprised there's no mention of Rodenberry's later work (mainly organised by his wife), such as Earth: Final Conflict or Andromeda, both of which are (to my ken) attempts at handling issues he didn't deal with in the way he'd've liked in ST. &mdash; OwenBlacker 11:08, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)

Doing research and writing a lot but an end looks very far out. Okay, I know, what I wrote is a very rough draft with many mistakes. But I think, somehow, US and UK section need to be better organized instead of just a single long text for each country. I hacked the part I'm writing into 3 parts by the diffrence between real acting, anime, and other and I think it serves the purpose right now. Revth 16:28, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I first saw Angmering's request to expand the section on US television science fiction, so I just started to work. I assumed he wanted conclusions with examples, as opposed to just a bunch of facts about each show. When I finally got something worth putting into Wikipedia, it was 12 paragraphs long, I found out the whole page was 57 KB long, and the picture of Dr. Who wasn't loading (I still use a 56 KB dial-up modem). Since 32 KB is the suggested max, I moved the US television science fiction section to a new page. Now we're down to 35 KB on the original page. Dr. Who's picture still doesn't want to load, though. Then I read the Talk section. I hope I haven't messed up Revth's re-organization. I just wanted to put in something now. Rmeier 01:30, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Science fiction film
Some parts of the current article may be merged/synchronised with Science fiction film. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:46, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Doctor Who and Life on Mars
There is sufficient ambiguity about Doctor Who's status as a science-fiction show that it is inappropriate for it to be used as a definitional programme in the lead, much less have its logo as the article's main picture. Many class it as science fantasy or simply action-adventure. Its record on injecting "science" into its fiction is spotty at best, downright dismissive at worst. I'm not saying the article shouldn't contain a reference to Doctor Who, or even a whole section, but holding it up as representative science fiction without proviso is highly contentious.

Furthermore, classing Life on Mars as science fiction is incredibly misleading, given the ending details of that show. CzechOut 08:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * From its beginning with William Hartnell Doctor Who has featured not only time travel (a subject which was good enough for H. G. Wells), but also robotics, mutations (Daleks), androids, space travel, and numerous other 'science' aspects of fiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.162.158 (talk) 10:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Keep fantasy out
More needs to be done to separate fantasy genre from science fiction. This article needs to be cleaned up. I have deleted several blocks incorrectly referencing fantasy series. The second opening passage rightly pointed out that there is some blurring (supernatural when backed up with scientific explanations) and abstract similarities (the special powers depicted in fantasy and the powers they give are depicted similarly to those imparted by technology) between fantasy films and science fiction films but crosses a line by declaring fantasy as science fiction.

The removed passage could be reintroduced if rewritten and given its own section.

Darck 2019
🪨 2806:2F0:4600:12BD:D5DB:66CA:9727:CE87 (talk) 18:05, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Conventions
The article states that Star Trek had the only conventions until the 1990s this patently false as Doctor Who began to have conventions beginning in the late 1970s and I'm aware other shows began to have them in at least the 1980s. Patrick Troughton died at one in the late 1980s. 5.133.47.240 (talk) 07:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The pare sare — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.5.212.226 (talk) 16:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC)