Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Science Fiction/Discussion Forum

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

worldswithoutend.com = spam??

[edit]

We've received a report about this domain at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#www.worldswithoutend.com. My inclination is to assume these links are probably not a problem, but I'm not a SF expert. Are these links a problem? Are they useful?

Any informed opinions you can give would be appreciated -- please leave them at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#www.worldswithoutend.com.

Thanks, --A. B. (talk • contribs) 00:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Four years later. No one did respond there.
I think it's nice that we indicate to readers where images of book front cover images are available (especially if they are first edition, where I don't know the facts about WWE).
In writer biographies we should provide one formal reference to the writer in the Science Fiction Awards Database (sfadb.com) covering at once "all" of the writer's annual science fiction awards and runners-up --rather than provide a string of repetitive WWE refs to its pages for particular award-years.
For example, our biography Hal Clement is recently mentioned below. It does provide (my work last year) a single formal reference to Clement at the Locus Index to SF Awards.[1] SFADB is currently maintained, as the Locus Index is not, so it should be a better source at least for active writers. SFADB does provide many cross-references. Eg, see Hal Clement at SFADB.
At a page such as Hugo Awards 1971, where Clement is a finalist for the Novel award, it does provide in the left margin a set of cover images --contemporary cover images for the Novel finalists, i suppose at a glance. --P64 (talk) 01:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(For lists of award winners I think we should cite official sources economically rather than provide repetitive full citations, not to mention full with redundant archive copies. Eg, see Hugo Award for Best Novel#References.)
--P64 (talk) 00:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moving "Isaac Asimov's ..." articles

[edit]

I've made a new proposal to rename Isaac Asimov's Robot Series and Isaac Asimov's Galactic Empire series in line with the naming conventions. Please have your say on the discussion there. --xensyriaT 19:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hal Clement page

[edit]

I've updated Hal Clement's page (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Hal_Clement) with all his short stories (I hope), the books that were missing, and some of his articles (not all, yet). Does anyone want to take a look, improve formats and all that? I am not an expert user of Wikipedia. Thanks! Jose Brox (talk) 16:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Missing articles about SF classics

[edit]

I've correlated James Wallace Harris' list of science fiction classics with our articles, and come up with this shortlist of classic works for which we do not have articles: User:The Anome/Classic science fiction

Of these, the most notable are these classic novels:

-- The Anome (talk) 16:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More eyes on Brandon Sanderson

[edit]

We need more eyes on Brandon Sanderson. Thanks. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scope and genre

[edit]

I had always considered this project to cover Speculative fiction in the broader sense, not just science fiction in the more narrow sense, and thus to include Fantasy and supernatural horror. Judging by the list of featured and good articles on the project page, I am at least correct abut Fantasy, but perhaps less so about Horror. I am perhaps influenced from having volunteered at the ISFDB, which very explicitly does include supernatural horror in its scope.

I raise the point because of this edit in which Fixuture removed the project banner and assessment from The Bottoms (novel), by Joe R. Lansdale. Lansdale is a very well known horror and fantasy author, and The Bottoms is one of his best known works. It, as well as pretty much all of Landsdale's other works, have ISFDB entries -- I verified a few of them.

It is my view that supernatural horror belongs in the scope of this project. Given that we include articles on E.A. Poe, I think that is hard to argue. But since I didn't see an explicit declaration of scope, i didn't simply revert. Can we discuss whether such works belong under the auspices of this project? DES (talk) 02:57, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think the scope of this project is, as the name says, science fiction (and not "speculative fiction" or anything alike). If there are any articles with the project banner that aren't science fiction the banner should be removed.
Supernatural horror is part of WikiProject Horror. For other speculative fiction & fantasy there doesn't seem to be a project just yet...I would encourage people creating it though.
For The Bottoms I can't find any site that meantions it even partially as being scifi; such as the goodreads page (see the right side). Categorizing it under science fiction is simply false.
For Poe afaik most of his stories don't have the science fiction banner. For the banner on the article of him as a person and the few exceptions, see: http://www.sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/poe_edgar_allan
Supernatural horror can be science fiction but isn't science fiction just by being supernatural horror.
Sorry, but I think there's a misunderstanding on what this project is about; it's not because I don't think fantasy and supernatural horror aren't valueable or something.
--Fixuture (talk) 12:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The reasons that I think Science fiction, Fantasy, and Supernatural horror ought to be covered together are that:
  1. Often the same writers write more than one of these;
  2. Often the same people are fans of two or all three;
  3. The lines between them are very blurry, many significant works can be hard to assign unambiguously to one of these three sub-genres. If we attempt to be strict in including only "pure" science fiction, there is the potential for endless arguments over inclusion/exclusion.
  4. Many sources, such as the ISFDB deal with all three, or with Fantasy and Science Fiction together. Indeed one of the major magazines is named The Magazine of fantasy and Science Fiction. Hugo awards are given for nearly pure fantasy such as the original Pern story "Dragonflight" (although that series has moved into the realm of "science fantasy" in its later works).
My fairly extensive online experience is largely at the Usenet forum rec.arts.sf.written were both Fantasy and Horror were always considered firmly on-topic; and at the ISFDB, where their formal scope of inclusion says the same thing.
My more limited convention experience says that at a typical "science fiction convention" fantasy fans outnumber pure science fiction fans, and horror fans are very much in evidence DES (talk) 15:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the articles listed on the project page that would need to be deleted if we defiend our scope as pure science fiction include:
No doubt there are many more articles with the project banner that would need to be excluded under such a rule. I hope that other project members will weigh in on this discussion. DES (talk) 15:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Often the same writers write more than one of these
This is why authors (such as Edgar Allan Poe & Joe R. Lansdale) can have the science fiction banner even though just few of their works are truly scifi.
Often the same people are fans of two or all three
Sorry, but "being a fan of science fiction" doesn't make any author's article (let alone their works) relevant to this WikiProject. Exception is if that author made some notable comments on or other contributions for science fiction.
The lines between them are very blurry, many significant works can be hard to assign unambiguously to one of these three sub-genres.
Indeed. But there is a line. And for cases where multiple (sub)genres apply, multiple WikiProject-banners ought to be set.
If we attempt to be strict in including only "pure" science fiction, there is the potential for endless arguments over inclusion/exclusion.
I agree on that. But in the specific case of The Bottom there doesn't seem to be any significant trace of science fiction in it that makes it scifi enough to include the banner. Many other people on Goodreads and the net are implicitly saying the same.
Many sources, such as the ISFDB deal with all three, or with Fantasy and Science Fiction together. Indeed one of the major magazines is named The Magazine of fantasy and Science Fiction. Hugo awards are given for nearly pure fantasy such as the original Pern story "Dragonflight" (although that series has moved into the realm of "science fantasy" in its later works).
Well, all of these should have the science fiction banner on their article's talk page, except "Dragonflight".
My fairly extensive online experience is largely at the Usenet forum rec.arts.sf.written were both Fantasy and Horror were always considered firmly on-topic;
That doesn't say much about such articles should be tagged though. WikiProjects are no groups of interest for discussion. If the Project was named "WikiProject Speculative Fiction" or if it was a Goodreads reading group that would be something different.
and at the ISFDB, where their formal scope of inclusion says the same thing.
Well, that's why ISFDB is in the scope of this WikiProject but not everything that is in the ISFDB.
My more limited convention experience says that at a typical "science fiction convention" fantasy fans outnumber pure science fiction fans, and horror fans are very much in evidence
Number and intersections of fans of the various genres are no argument about what articles should be tagged with this project's banner.
Some of the articles listed on the project page that would need to be deleted if we defiend our scope as pure science fiction include: [...]
2 of those indeed need to have their banner removed. But most of them are in the scope of this WikiProject for being science fantasy (such as Wizards (film)) or also covering science fiction (such as A. Merritt's Fantasy Magazine and all other ones).
--Fixuture (talk) 15:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For some related discussion see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Fantasy task force (six new items since 2012, including "Why not just, Wikipedia: WikiProject Fantasy"), Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Science fiction task force (five new items since 2012). There are crime and military fiction task forces with zero and one new discussion items since 2012, and others not defined by genre (see full list at WP:Novels, right margin). --P64 (talk) 16:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also the now-latest item in the archive of this page, Wikipedia:WikiProject Science Fiction/Discussion Forum/Archive 1#Project active?. Here too there are few new items since 2012, only six. But compare the main wikiproject talk page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science Fiction and skim its 59 new items since 2012 (mainly in the latest archive); evidently it is the relegation of some discussion to this page that has been nearly abandoned. --P64 (talk) 16:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The reality is that since before the creation of the term "science fiction" by Hugo Gernsback, "scientific romances" or whatever else you wish to term them have pretty blatantly been confused or conflated with what we now term "fantasy" fiction. Even within the fan communities, where the discussions of the fine distinctions were and remain the topic of much pilpul, three of the oldest surviving organizations are the National Fantasy Fan Federation, the Fantasy Amateur Press Association and the Los Angeles Science Fantasy Society. Go into any bookstore, and the odds are extremely high that fantasy of even the purest sort will be intermingled with the hardest of SF strict sense according to the vagaries of the alphabet and/or book format and size. By an extension of WP:COMMONNAME, it seems to me obvious that SF and fantasy both fall within the purview of this project. (And of course, McCaffrey's Pern books were and remain science fiction; the delusion that they are in any way fantasy derives from a misunderstanding of the term "dragon" as used in the series, and the bizarre idea that low tech = fantasy.) --Orange Mike | Talk 16:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Fixuture misunderstands my arguments above. I am not claiming that because of overlap of fans, publishing outlets, and discussion fora, works of Fantasy and Horror are therefore science fiction. What I am claiming is that because of those overlaps it is more convenient to treat them together. I am also claiming that the practice of this project has been to cover at least a fair amount of fantasy, and some horror, although its formal name remained WikiProject Science Fiction. I am suggesting that that past practice means more than the formal name does. Indeed the thread just above this recommends project members look at Brandon Sanderson, an author know pretty much only for Fantasy writing. I suppose I am suggesting that, either formally or informally, this becomes WikiProject Speculative Fiction, with a scope that explicitly includes Fantasy and Supernatural Horror. But I am primarily suggesting that the project had been something of the sort all along, even without explicitly saying so, ans should continue to be so. DES (talk) 17:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, as to Pern, The series as a whole is pretty clearly science fiction. But if you look at the first story olny, which eventually became the first chapter of the first novel in the series, and which won a Hugo award, taken on its own it is apparently Fantasy. None of the scientific explanations for the origin of the dragons, or the origin of the settlements on Pern, or for any of the background were present in that story. Had no other stories in that setting been published, i think it would have ben classified as plainly fantasy. Yet it won a Hugo for "Best Science fiction Novelette" (or maybe it was Novella?), so that shows something of what the real-world SF community thinks. DES (talk) 18:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What I am claiming is that because of those overlaps it is more convenient to treat them together
It might be more convenient but it's still a lumping together of genres that are separate. It is simply false. Once again this project is about science fiction, and not speculative fiction. If you#d like it to name-change you could propose that (not sure if it's possible though).
I am also claiming that the practice of this project has been to cover at least a fair amount of fantasy, and some horror, although its formal name remained WikiProject Science Fiction.
Agree: again science fiction horror and science fantasy should be tagged with the banner as well.
I am suggesting that that past practice means more than the formal name does.
You can do so the Usenet, Goodreads and other discussion forums but not on Wikipedia where precision of term-usage matters. If you lump it together with fantasy etc. you also cause confusion for readers etc.
I suppose I am suggesting that, either formally or informally, this becomes WikiProject Speculative Fiction
That would also require a name-change. And I'm opposing this as it'll make this project useless for being way too large in scope to be of interest of contributors amongst other reasons.
Supernatural horror is once gain: covered by WikiProject Horror (you could suggest a task-force there for the supernatural kind).
I am primarily suggesting that the project had been something of the sort all along, even without explicitly saying so, ans should continue to be so.
From reviewing hundreds of articles of this project I haven't gotten that impression. This project is in scope correctly focused on science fiction.
--Fixuture (talk) 18:00, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Orangemike:
blatantly been confused or conflated with what we now term "fantasy" fiction
...it seems to me obvious that SF and fantasy both fall within the purview of this project
Don't you contradict yourself there? Wikipedia is about facts and not building upon confusions and conflations. It's rather meant to dissolve these.
This is also why Fantasy fiction and Science fiction are 2 separate articles.
Go into any bookstore, and the odds are extremely high that fantasy of even the purest sort will be intermingled with the hardest of SF strict sense according to the vagaries of the alphabet and/or book format and size.
Yea, but Wikipedia doesn't sort them by alphabet but by their correct genre (in this case).
Also "Use commonly recognizable names" does not mean "Use commonly false names if they're often conflated".
{{{1}}}
Note that fantasy and science fiction aren't the only genres out there. If none apply it should be just assigned to WikiProject Novels.
Also I'd endorse a WikiProject Fantasy, as apparently many people do as well (see @P64:'s post above).
--Fixuture (talk) 17:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When {{|Fixuture}} wrote above: "It might be more convenient but it's still a lumping together of genres that are separate. It is simply false. Once again this project is about science fiction, and not speculative fiction." I feel he is being both unduly essentialist and unduly nominalist. Essentialist in that he is treating "Science fiction" and "fantasy" as platonic ideals, or Natural kinds, like a metal and a noble gas, or a plant and an animal. But they aren't, they are merely convenient categories for the results of human creativity. If it is convenient to treat them together under the larger rubric of "speculative fiction", there is nothing wrong with doing so. Damon Knight famously said "Science Fiction is that which we point to when we say 'Science Fiction'" meaning that the only true definition is usage. Similarly, the scope of this project is defined by how we use it, or by however we agree to use it in future. To be hung up on the project's name as opposed to its practice is to be overly nominalist, in my view.
There is a group of works that can be pretty clearly labeled as "Science Fiction", another group that can be pretty clearly labeled as "Fantasy", and yet another that can be fairly clearly labelled as "Supernatural Horror". Between and around those there are other works which can't be so clearly labeled, that partake of elements of more than one of these groups, or of some elements usually thought to define one of these groups but not all such elements. But most, if not all, of these will fall plausibly under a larger grouping of "speculative fiction". We can, if we choose to, adopt the practice that this project deals with that wider grouping. Or we can restrict it to "pure" science fiction. This is a choice, not a question with an obvious right and wrong answer.
Moreover if "lumping together of genres that are separate" is "false" then what do we do about the several fairly clear sub-genres that exist within science fiction? Alternate history, in particular, is generally classed with science fiction largely by historical accident, it has little in common with classic SF. Should we then split off WikiProject Alternate History? and perhaps WikiProject MilitarySF? "MilSF" forms a fairly coherent group of works, with their own conventions and tropes, often reacting to one another, aqnd not as much to the rest of SF. There are other resoanably coherent sub-genres as well. If it is 'wrong" to join SF and Fantasy and perhaps Horror, why is it not wrong to join Alternate History, MillSF, and classic Hard SF (and other groupings)?
As to horror, consider Shirley Jackson's The Haunting of Hill House. At first this seems like classic supernatural horror, but the entity in HillHouse is never clearly defined. It could as easily be an odd sort of alien as a ghost. Or consider Sturgeon's "Killdozer" The opening paragraph makes this SF by casting the malign force as a long-entombed alien. But leave out that paragraph (which was not present in the initial published version, IIRC) and this becomes a straight horror story, even if an odd one. As it stands the effect is entirely that of horror. Should this be considered SF? Or consider Jackson's very well known story "The Lottery" Is this Alternate History? Surely no such practices are common in 1950s America. It isn't classic fantasy, nor exactly Horror either, although the effect is surely horrifying. But it is often classed as SF.
I could cite many more examples, but this is already getting long. My point is that the question of scope can't be usefully resolved by just pointing to the name of the project -- we need to actually consider how we want this project to work. And that needs more than a decision by one editor, or two either. DES (talk) 00:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If we abolish what you call "unduly essentialism" here this wouldn't be an encyclopeida anymore; it would simply be people's opinions and fuzzy terms being blurred and lumped together as they wish. All you're doing here is critizing the essential need of any encyclopedia to duly categorize and applying precision when doing so.
as platonic ideals, or Natural kinds, like a metal and a noble gas, or a plant and an animal. But they aren't, they are merely convenient categories for the results of human creativity.
Yes but there are multiple of such categories. Let's take two of them: fantasy and science fiction. Why do these terms exist when it's all just "fiction" you might ask. It's because people found the need or at least interest in as well as some distinctions for subcategorizing it.
Similarly, the scope of this project is defined by how we use it
And this is why it's important to not go havoc and lump things together that don't belong together and instead have to apply precision and due caution. the scope of this project is in its name: SCIENCE FICTION.
Not fiction.
Not speculative fiction.
Not fantasy.
Not supernatural horror.
Not science fiction and fantasy.
Not whatever someone thinks should be in the scope of this project.
And that is good. If you have a problem with that I encourage you to create a WikiProject Fantasy or alike.
another group that can be pretty clearly labeled as "Fantasy", and yet another that can be fairly clearly labelled as "Supernatural Horror".
Supernatural horror without elements of science fiction (some of them might be partly science fiction which, if so, is explicitly stated in the article's text or at an external reliable source) is part of WP:WikiProject Horror. Fantasy doesn't have it own WikiProject just yet - but once again you could help set it up. By now there's just the task-force of WP:WikiProject Novels.
Moreover if "lumping together of genres that are separate" is "false" then what do we do about the several fairly clear sub-genres that exist within science fiction?
Not sure what you're saying here. Of course works can be part of multiple genres. There are (probably relatively few as the name suggests) works that are supernatural horror and science fiction but not all supernatural horror is science fiction.
Alternate history, in particular, is generally classed with science fiction largely by historical accident, it has little in common with classic SF. Should we then split off WikiProject Alternate History? and perhaps WikiProject MilitarySF? If it is 'wrong" to join SF and Fantasy and perhaps Horror, why is it not wrong to join Alternate History, MillSF, and classic Hard SF (and other groupings)?
As above: works can be part of multiple genres. I think this also goes for works of alternate history: e.g. if a novel just features other, alternative historical events but not other thought up technologies or societies it's not in the scope of this project but just WP:WikiProject Alternate History (which exists btw!). MilitarySF is obviously a sub-genre of science fiction and could get its own task-force within this project but doesn't need to. MilitarySF is, as the name clearly suggests btw, science fiction - it's a sub-genre not sure what's hard to understand about that.
At first this seems like classic supernatural horror, but the entity in HillHouse is never clearly defined. It could as easily be an odd sort of alien as a ghost.
Not sure how anyone would think that this would be a sufficient reason to categorize it under science fiction. These are very specific examples; you'd need to check if science fiction styles and thought are applied. If it's just slaughtering, psychological thrill, horror etc it's not science fiction - if it also features let's say a realistic dystopian society or if that ghost/alien/whatever can do specific relatively "realistical" things such as mindwiping or alike then it might be in the scope of this project. For these cases better check if there are external sources saying that it's partly scifi first though.
My point is that the question of scope can't be usefully resolved by just pointing to the name of the project
Every single one of the borderline cases need to be approached with caution and thoroughly checked. The name of the project defines its purpose and when setting the project banner one's assignment is to resolve this by due thought and research.
we need to actually consider how we want this project to work. And that needs more than a decision by one editor, or two either.
Yes, but I think you're asking the wrong questions. It's not about whether or not this project is about science fiction and nothing else - this decision was made when this project was set up and when people joined it and worked under its banner. It's rather about how to approach some of the borderline cases such as alternate history (which is imo the single hardest borderline case).
I think the best approach for such cases (when it's not quite clear if they're to some extent science fiction) is:
  1. Check the article text: does it in any place explicitly state that there's science fiction in it?
  2. Look up external sources. There should be at least some people on sites such as Goodreads that categorized it as scifi before a banner is appropiate in these cases.
  3. For the very rare cases that you're really convinced that a work just has to be science fiction, but there's no sign of it being actually true to be found anywhere else (you're probably wrong but could) consider making a talk-page entry on the article's page asking about whether or not the work is appropiate for the banner and await if there's consensus.
--Fixuture (talk) 01:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. (I am also flushleft above, now about halfway down this section.)

Before new wikiprojects, I fear/know that we need new editors :--( --P64 (talk) 19:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vindictive deletion of content from Unicon article

[edit]

How do I stop User_talk:The_Banner deleting valid content from Unicon convention article? Vicarage (talk) 06:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems this type of behaviour is viewed as acceptable, the article has been marked for deletion. This is not an organisation I want to take part in. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Vindictive_deletion_of_valid_content_from_a_page Vicarage (talk) 10:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By adding reliable, independent sources, Vicarage. Wikipedia is not for promo. The Banner talk 11:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think I am promoting the series? Vicarage (talk) 13:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vicarage – as an "Inclusionist" (someone who believes we shouldn't delete much) I'd love to see this article kept. That said, the "burden of proof" lies on the people who want to keep the article, not those who want to delete it – we need to demonstrate that it fits with Wikipedia's Notability guidelines. In order to do this, we would need to find multiple reliable sources that are independent of Unicon (i.e. the Unicon homepage you've got in the article isn't independent of Unicon, so it wouldn't count). Feel free to leave me a message here, or on my talk page. Let's save the article! ‑‑YodinT 14:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am abandoning wikipedia editing as I can't be bothered battling such petty people. Vicarage (talk) 23:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vicarage: You're really easy to drive away :/
Just add some refs and that's it.
In a quick research I couldn't find any WP:RS except maybe [2] so The_Banner might be right in deleting.
--Fixuture (talk) 15:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Science_Fiction/Discussion_Forum&oldid=1138357387"