Talk:Science fiction/Archive 6

Archives
October 2001 - March 2006 April 2006 - May 6, 2006 May 6, 2006 - Sept 18, 2006 Sept 18, 2006 - Dec 27, 2006 Dec 27, 2006 - Jan 22, 2007

A few more nits

• In "Speculative Fiction," the assertion that the term is "derived from the initials 'SF' of Science Fiction" is not supported by either of the sources cited. Instead, Ketterer writes that it "has been used," not that it was coined in that manner. Non-trivial difference. (The link, by the way, is http://www.depauw.edu/sfs/backissues/8/ketterer8art.htm.) The printed evidence is that Heinlein was the first to use it in its current sense in the context of a discussion of the nature of science fiction. The citations gathered on the Jessesword page show the evolution of the term pretty clearly, at least in print and in discussions within the SF subculture. (I doubt that its use in the 1889 Lippincott's Monthly article had much impact on later usage, though one never can tell.)

• Speaking only for myself: I added sources where they were missing; I didn't at that time question the accuracy or utility of sources already included the article. Avt tor 22:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Sci-fi and SF: The section gets it right in general, but perhaps it would be useful to note that Heinlein was using the term (without any disapprobation) in the late 1940s in correspondence and that Ackerman was the one who popularized (indeed, campaigned for) it. Again, the Jessesword citations suggest the origin and evolution of the tension between the two terms. There is a nice historical snapshot of the attitudes of some noteworthy writers and fans on the SFWA website: http://www.sfwa.org/misc/skiffy2.htm The "skiffy" pronunciation is a part of the continuing debate over the term's implications, and again Jessesword suggests where to look for point(s) of origin and any shifts of meaning. There is on-line anecdotal evidence that Susan Wood is one of the originators of the pronunciation and its explicit critique: http://www.sfwa.org/misc/skiffy2.htm. Look for a post by one Todd Mason, May 31 2001. Myself, I'd much prefer a print example (oral history is notoriously unreliable), but this is a starting place for a search. I'd say one function for the section is to make clear the subcultural tension associated with the two terms. (I suppose using one or the other might be seen as taking sides, but that's a different topic and perhaps not entirely settled yet.)

• Speaking only for myself: This section was a summary of the much longer and looser earlier section on this point. With the cn tag, I'm not exactly contesting the Susan Wood origin (shows up in Google). I'm just not sure it's relevant; if someone wants to source it they can do so.

• I don't see a "subcultural tension associated with the two terms". I see a controversial connotation widely associated with one of these terms. The purpose of the section, IMO, is to educate the reader as to which contexts are associated with which usages. A prose discussion of the subject, like this article, is a context where "SF" is the appropriate usage. The term "Sci-Fi" acquired the connotation of low-quality monster films that UHF stations showed on weekends in the 1970s. The Sci-Fi Channel intentionally embraces this tradition. They use it in exactly the same way some rappers use the bad N-word to refer to African-Americans. Just because Ackerman, Heinlein, and others used the word back in the '50s, '60s, and '70s doesn't make it acceptable today. Spelling out "science fiction" every time would by clunky and make the article less readable. Avt tor 22:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and that is surely the reason the terms "SF" and "Sci-Fi" have evolve: laziness and aesthetics. Besides which, it is perfectly acceptable in formal writing to use an abbrevation once it has been introduced. Although it is often best to alternate amongst forms for variety and effect. --Belg4mit 04:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

A general comment on sources and authoritativeness: Here and in the "Speculative Fiction" article I see a good deal of looseness in "sourcing." Sometimes it's a matter of going beyond what the source says (the Ketterer citation above), while more often it's a matter of accepting anything that's Google-able as authoritative or trustworthy. Research-skill courses always include evaluation-of-sources as a fundamental for doing good research. In areas where there is professionally-produced scholarship, why accept amateur? If there is a lexicographic site (or even a book--remember books?) that provides dated examples of usage with some context, why not rely on that rather than whatever might be current on the street or in the chat-room? I would point out that Wikipedia articles on technical, scientific, and medical topics do not settle for popularizations or imprecision. Why should we settle for less? RLetson 21:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

On the last point, Hear! Hear! We are not all going to agree on every point, but there is a lot of high-quality scholarship out there, so we should use it to settle issues or provide the notable points of view that need to be reported. Metamagician3000 22:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• The earlier version of this article lacked sources and relevant sections. I added relevant sections, and found some sources where I could. I don't think anyone objects to further improvement in this vein. However I would argue against going too far in an academic direction with this; I believe this should be a survey/overview article that refers people to more detailed or specific information on other pages, so this page should remain accessible. I think "technical, scientific, and medical" is the not the right mindset for this. Avt tor 22:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

On Susan Wood, the Clute/Nicholls Encyclopedia says in the article on "sci fi" (as they spell it, without the hyphen): "Around 1978 the critic Susan WOOD and others began pronouncing the term 'skiffy'." This short article is written by Nicholls, who knows what he is talking about on such matters. It doesn't nail down that Susan Wood was the very first person to do this, but I don't see how that could ever be established. It would help if we simply checked Clute and Nicholls for their viewpoint on such things. Even though it is only one viewpoint, it is a highly authoritative one, and easy to cite, since I'm sure most of us own copies of this volume and have it readily to hand. Metamagician3000 22:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I've now tweaked this a little with appropriate citations of Peter Nicholls' relevant entries in Clute/Nicholls. Metamagician3000 23:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Nits Re-redux

Under the "Related Genres" heading, we could do without the "Mainstream" and "Mystery" sections. If you back up far enough, all genres are related, and I can't think of a good reason to single out "mainstream" (which term deserves a whole discussion of its own as a matter of subcultural identity-politics rather than of literary genre theory) or mystery. If it's a matter of writers or readers crossing over or of particular traits-in-common, why not mention historical fiction? Or romances? If we're going to do taxonomy, we should do it properly rather than by random association. And I emphasize that audience demographics, marketing strategies, and bookstore shelving arrangements are not the same as literary study (though comprehensive literary study ought to include consideration of them). RLetson 23:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, although we do need some discussion somewhere of the demarcation between SF and the so-called "mainstream". Metamagician3000 23:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no opinion about "Mainstream"; it was in the article before. I note that when it hass been discussed in the past, (other) people have definite opinions about it, so I would be in favor of keeping it. As for mystery, specifically, one has to note that the world mystery convention is "Bouchercon". And regardless of audience demographics or marketing strategies, it has been emphasized to me by a number of prominent, award-winning mystery writers that science fiction is the foundation on which mystery is built; mystery is a "what if?" speculative genre which routinely depends on science in the fiction, all the way back at least to Conan Doyle, possibly even Poe. The question is not whether these associations exist, because obviously they do, but merely whether they are notable. I have friends working in subgenres of SF and fantasy romance, but I'm not sure those subcategories are yet significant. I do not subscribe to the notion that all facts or categories are of equal importance. The intent of my dreft was to be comprehensive regarding relevant points, not "taxonomic" about minor ones. In the process of shrinking this article to a somewhat manageable size, I felt obliged to reduce "post-apocalyptic fiction" to a mere see-also link. Others may have their opinion, but I don't feel SF can be fully understood without some understanding of its context within the broader spectrum of genre literature. Subordinate pages can explore this in more detail. I feel that mentioning mystery as the most relevant example of a related genre invites people to explore further. Avt tor 00:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

(The following has gotten tangled up in colliding edits--watch for unintended cross-purposes.) I think the point I'm after is that "mainstream" is defined negatively, and not just from the point of view of SF--a mystery reader might see a novel-with-a-murder as "not really a mystery but mainstream" if it gives too much attention to matters other than the solution to the crime. Ditto a horror fan encountering, say, a novel about the Rwanda genocide. So the distinction between SF and "mainstream" is just one of the boundary conditions that a definition or genre-mapping essay might consider. But there's a compelling argument that there is no single mainstream genre--though there are plenty of readers who avoid books that have particular genre markers (rockets & rayguns, serial killers, demonic resurrected pets, lovely single-mother nurses in love with handsome doctors, and so on). The fact that their own preferences can be accurately mapped (sensitive young person searches for love and meaning in the big city, family is torn apart by revelations of past abuse, sensitive young woman seeks man who lacks committment issues, etc.) does not seem to register on them as signalling the existence of genres in their reading. A slightly different problem is presented by what might be called "minimally science fictional narratives"--James-Bondian thrillers are a good example. My solution is to acknowledge that SF is a matter of "furniture" (to use George R.R. Martin's term for what I would call a motif or trope or Idea) and that a narrative can have any amount of it. Then the question is what is done with the science-fictiony bits: does the SF furniture transform the world or just provide an occasion for adventures? If the latter, it is a McGuffin, and we're into interestingly swampy taxonomic terrain. RLetson 00:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Bah, sorry about conflicting edits. My inclination is to lean more towards being comprehensive, relevant, and concise, and less towards a perfect system of classification. If people care, they can look further, IMO. Avt tor 00:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You both make some points that I agree with. I'll have to scratch my head about this. I have some complicated views of my own about the relationship between sf (or "genre" fiction in general) and the "mainstream" but this is probably not the place for them. Hmmmmm. Metamagician3000 00:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I read your edits just recently. I was nodding my head about the small changes, and then you added the Suvin paragraph. That's really triggering my "summarize" itch. I'd really like to suggest this level of detail go to the "Definition of SF" article, which has a more academic slant. I'm not at all objecting to the content, just questioning whether it belongs at this level; it's not introductory material, IMO. Avt tor 00:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

LOL, I thought I put it in a very concise, almost cryptic, way. This is a tricky area. Obviously, the dedicated article on definitions needs more detail, but I don't think we should stint on giving necessary detail here. For myself, I wonder why we need the random statements by Serling and Nabokov, but I let them go. I do think that someone should try to summarise the views of Gary Westfahl, which are totally at odds with those of Suvin (and most other academic scholars). There's an article by him in Science Fiction Studies in recent years where he summarises his views conveniently; I must find it. Metamagician3000 00:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, whatever I may think about relevance, I don't like deleting stuff that other people have written, so I tend to think about it for a while. It's not that your paragraph is wordy, it's just that this whole section is not, IMO, what the article is about, so when the section gets to more than three paragraphs it invites some consideration. I don't have a strong opinion about the Serling or Nabokov quotes. The earlier version of this article, and this section specifically, was long and rambly. I kept quotes on the basis of whether they stitched together somewhat coherently. It's not that there's a specific length that fits, though I did squish the summary of the history of science fiction down to five paragraphs, so that's kind of a benchmark. I would ask that any edits to the main page be reflected (and expanded where appropriate) on the subordinate pages, where practical, to keep things in sync. Avt tor 01:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Oops. I think I'm responsible for the Vladimir Nabokov quotation. About two years ago, if my memory functions correctly, this article was in truly poor shape, with all sorts of digressions which would have counted as Original Research if they were comprehensible at all. In trimming the page back to size, I needed a quick line indicating the difficulties of genre classification (or perhaps the low esteem which "serious" critics have often held for SF, I forget). Oddly enough, Nabokov's Strong Opinions was the closest reference at hand.

It has since moved N times, and recovering the original context would be impossible without an archaeological expedition. Such an expedition would hardly be worthwhile, anyway. Anville 03:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I like the Nabokov quote, but whatever others prefer is okay by me (as long as y'all keep this reasonably short). Avt tor 07:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[Un-indent]I don't understand why the reference to Carr and Knight has been removed. It has a perfectly good secondary source provided, i.e. the authoritative Clute/Nicholls Encyclopedia. This is exactly the sort of source we should be relying on - we should not be going off trying to find primary sources from which to draw our inferences, but merely synthesising what has been said elsewhere. The aim of Wikipedia is not to provide an outlet for original research but to provide a free on-line encyclopedia that synthesises what has already been published in other reliable sources. The relevant article in Clute/Nicholls is also a reliable source for the claim about Ackerman, by the way. Metamagician3000 21:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I apologize. Thank you fro the clarification. I was just about to say here "if this came from the book, please put it back in." I'll try to clean it up (since I added another source). Avt tor 21:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

No worries. :) Metamagician3000 23:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Automated Peer Review Suggestions

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.^[?]
• There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.^[?]
• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.^[?]
• This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.^[?]
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • is considered

might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[?]

• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Malkinann 22:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Fascinating. Will think on these. Of course the first two are in direct conflict; infobox plus graphic were messy.

There are many different infoboxes which will be applied in the science fiction categories. My thought is that the mini-infobox that I've incorporated will be a header that could stick on top of templates for, say, science fiction authors, science fiction films, etc. The big infobox that was here before was redundant with the bottom index box, IMO. Obviously this is a point subject to consensus, but my opinion is that it doesn't make sense to have a big infobox on only the most generic pages. The graphic that used to be at the top of the article might be moved back now.

This article covers a broad scope and has been heavily summarized. References, templates, and other non-content are more than half the file length of this article, which may make the JavaScript think the article is longer than it really is.

Passive voice and subjective adjectives tend to arise from sources; sharpening the language would be inconsistent with sources in cases that I can think of offhand.

As for not repeating the title of the article in article sections, there are a few sections where not including some version of the article subject would be confusing (I mean, would "Hard" be a useful section title?). Of course I'm thinking a convenient abbreviation might come in handy for these... :)

This is just a quick comment; wouldn't hurt for people to go over the article. Avt tor 01:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd still want to hold out for an image - I've heard that having an image every 500 words or so is considered 'nice' in FA circles. May not be possible or entirely appropriate, mind you.

Infobox is our little {{SF}}, I think... not quite, but nearly!!

As for 'not repeating the title', I think that for discussing genres of science fiction, we're going to have to bend that rule. I don't think using abbreviations would be appropriate in a heading. (except, ofc, for sci-fi vs. SF)

the guide to the automated system says on the toc length that it just tallys up the number of headings. So the solution is to look at each of our headings and think 'Do we absolutely, really, truly need this heading???' I think that maybe, with some skill, Science_fiction#Introduction_to_science_fiction_literature could be turned into a couple of paragraphs with only the main ==Introduction to science fiction literature== remaining. When going for GA or FA, prose is generally preferred over lists.

It might also help to read over the wiki's guide to summary style, to get ideas on how to summarise nicely.

In regards to 'weasel words' - I tend to hold that if they're properly cited by something reputable, then they're not weasel words. the Java can't tell if they're cited or not, so going over the prose with a fine toothed comb is the way to weed out weasel words.

Just in regards to citation, a rule of thumb that seems to be floating around GA is 66-80% citation. I'm not sure if it's relaxed a bit since the new and improved 2a came in, but I don't suspect so. Does science fiction look 66-80% cited?

With over-verbose wordage, it'd be absolutely inappropriate to change anything we're quoting in the article, but it may be possible to tighten the prose in other places. Even after we think we're ready to send it to GA, it'd be worthwhile to take it to peer review and later to the League of (extraordinary!) Copyeditors, in case we've missed something. Thanks, - Malkinann 08:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

What are FA and GA? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kdammers (talk • contribs) 08:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

They're a wiki thing that recognises quality of articles - GA is for Good articles, and FA is for Featured articles. Anything that gets to Featured article is considered the 'cream of the crop'. Hope this helps.  :) - Malkinann 09:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Munged-up references

Something I did seems to have made a mess of the footnotes from 9 onwards. I'm trying to figure it out, but if someone more adept at the ref tags beats me to it, so much the better. RLetson 17:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Aargh--supplied missing ">." Proofing in this edit window is a bugger.RLetson 17:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Heh, I do that all the time. Usually I remember to preview my edits before I post them. Avt tor 17:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

New tags, asking for help

Malkinann has added a fact tag and a clarify tag. These things bug me and I try to squash them when I see them. (Not suggesting they aren't justified.) The usual solution is to rewrite and/or research a point, but in this case the obvious solutions are eluding me:

In the third paragraph, where it says "Science fiction often involves one or more of the following elements:" I never liked this paragraph much in the first place, it's a little too exclusive and narrow for me, and yet some sort of pointers seems useful to me. If anybody has an obvious solution and/or a good research cite (I don't care if we keep the specific bullet points), that would be helpful.

In the comics section, the phrase "but a large minority do not use superhero characters or themes" sounds like something I summarized from either an earlier section or the Comic Books page. This isn't my area of expertise. I could rewrite it, but someone who knows the subject can probably come with better wording and/or research cites.

One way or another, I don't plan to let these tags survive for long. If I can't think of a better solution, I may just delete stuff; hopefully someone else has better ideas. Avt tor 17:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

On the "elements" subsection: I recall a Wikian principle that allows unsourced material that is the result of what anybody with an operational nervous system can see for herself. That would permit that set of observations--though I also recall seeing dictionary definitions that read very like this passage, so sourcing isn't impossible. The same no-source-needed principle applies to the comics section, which could be fixed with a little judicious, non-expert rewriting: Anybody can see that SF motifs, especially the superhero, are a prominent part of the comics tradition. (The "Science fiction comics" article pointed to, by the way, strikes me as very weak--no mention of Buck Rogers, for starters--unless it's narrowly focused on the comic book.) RLetson 18:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Just revised the comics paragraph--which seemed to morph in mid-edit, btw. In any case, it's a start on streamlining that section. Next step is to restore the links to the appropriate Wiki articles. RLetson 18:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

A "large minority" sounds strange to me. It's good that the tags are being taken in the spirit they're intended - which is the improvement of the article.  :) - Malkinann 21:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Anime

I have rewritten the Anime section to focus on science fiction anime. My knowledge of this is almost entirely from research; someone who knows the subject can probably improve on the section (hopefully without making it longer). Avt tor 20:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe ask WP:ANIME for help? If it gets too long, it could be spun out into the existing Science fiction in Japan. - Malkinann 21:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed the conceptually jumbled opening sentence of this section: "Even more so than movies, science fiction and fantasy are popular genres within the artistic medium of anime." Despite the way American fans may perceive it, anime is not an autonomous artistic medium. It can't be distinguished from movies like the art of dance can be distinguished from the art of sculpture. Anime can be, and often is, synonymous with movies. Anime simply means animated. The term is mostly used to distinguish its format from live action film. The idea that science fiction and fantasy are more popular in anime than in movies is a clear example of someone trying so hard to make a definitive statement, that the intended meaning is obscured.

Removed "Like animation generally, most anime could fit within the broader definitions of science fiction, if only for the exaggerated or improbable kinds of physical or character action in an animated medium." Is the writer of this statement implying that exaggeration and improbability necessarily make all animation science fiction? Because that's how it reads. Not only is this a grossly inaccurate statement, but it contradicts the definition of science fiction given earlier in the article.

Keep it simple. "Science fiction is a particularly popular genre of anime" is a perfectly adequate introduction to this section. Also, the last paragraph of this section was too off-topic to bother editing, so it was removed too.

(Science fiction) Fandom

An editor has put a clarify tag on the sentence

Fandom[clarify] is said to have emerged from the letters column in Amazing Stories magazine.

The earlier paragraph begins with the words "Science fiction fandom". I believe it would be deeply redundant to start the second paragraph with the words "Science fiction fandom". In this context I think it's reasonable to assume a reader would interpret it this way. Given the context it's hard for me to understand why someone might confuse this with, say, sports fandom (which almost certainly predates SF fandom). Opinions requested as to whether this clarify tag is actually appropriate. Avt tor 21:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I just wasn't sure whether the Fandom referred to the Science fiction fandom, or if SF Fandom was somehow laying claim to beginning the Fandom phenomenon. (as SF Fandom has laid claim to incubating gamers, libertarians, etc.) -Malkinann 21:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I can see where you're coming from. I have linked the term "fandom" in the first paragraph to the Wikipedia article, which mentions the term in relation to sports fandom dating back to 1903. Does that clarify sufficiently? Avt tor 22:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It's better, but I'm still a bit iffy... I don't think it's such a bad thing to have a couple of paragraphs beginning with "Science fiction fandom" - maybe when we take it to Peer Review, someone will tell us yay or nay. Maybe now would be time for the use of the phrase SF Fandom in the main article? - Malkinann 23:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Telepathy and Soft SF

I have found zillions of references explaining telepathy and other psychic phenomena as a form of "soft science fiction", not counting the endless mirrors and other RSS slurps from Wikipedia itself. (Someone translated the Wikipedia stuff into Italian, that was interesting.) The blogosphere seems totally comfortable with this usage. However, for reliable sources, I came up empty; the most solid thing I could find was at fireflyfans.net. I believe the sentence came from summarization of earlier text. At any rate, without a reliable source, I felt obliged to delete this point. If someone else could find a more serious reference about this, feel free to put it back in. Avt tor 22:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

SF (again)

User:MatthewFenton has put in the "to-do" list removing references to the terms "Sci-Fi" and "SF" in the article. The only references to "Sci-Fi" are once in the beginning, a few times in the paragraph discussing the terms "sci-fi" and "SF", once or twice in relation to the Sci-Fi Channel, and probably scattered in the references. I removed this from that bullet point as there isn't anywhere else we could remove this term.

The term "SF" is found once in the beginning (again, it is a very common abbreviation), a few times in the paragraph discussing the terms "sci-fi" and "SF", and many times in references and as part of the proper noun name of organizations. Also I found six references to "hard SF" (once as a definition), two references to "military SF", and two more usages of the term "SF" in relation to media. A core issue here is what is the best term to use, over and over, for hard SF.

My opinion is that one purpose of an encyclopedia is to educate users, and that wordiness doesn't serve the reader's interest. Beyond that, I don't want to rehash the substantive issue, as I think most people have heard this "debate". I would just like to ask people to express a simple (i.e. easy to count) opinion on this point. Avt tor 23:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

SF is a very, very common usage both in print and on-line sources that talk about science fiction. And if there are any concerns about whether it's too informal for a respectable resource, I point to Clute & Nicholls, who use the lower-case variant throughout their Encyclopedia. RLetson 00:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

When discussing "SF vs. Sci-fi", using SF is inevitable. If the Hard science fiction movement use "Hard SF" to refer to themselves, then we should also use it, after having explained that the full version is hard science fiction. Does the military science fiction movement also use Military SF to refer to themselves? But I'm reluctant to use it simply as an abbreviation for science fiction, as in here: "SF dominates all the audiovisual media, including films, television, and computer games." - Malkinann 00:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Retain SF - There is no comprehensible reason to remove the abbreviation SF from material within this article, where the use is clear and ambiguous. Lowercase "sf" is a more esoteric useage. --Orange Mike 01:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Would you say the same if I wrote text and used "sci-fi" extensively, or would you have a hissy fit about the usage of sci-fi? either way neither should be used this is an ENCYCLOPAEDIA!! thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 01:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:SIZE. And the "encyclopedia" objection doesn't apply. This isn't an obscure bit of fannish jargon, it's simply a common abbreviation for the article subject using the subject's own initials. Please refer to the section in WP:MOS regarding abbreviations. (I can't imagine having to spell out "New Democratic Party" more than once or twice in an article.) Avt tor 04:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Side note my addition to that template is *signed* as in partly comment and so only I should remove it. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 01:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:OWN. Should we all put our opinions in template format? If a to-do list belongs to the community, then we will tick off items as they are completed; for items where we don't have consensus, we'll discuss them. If it's just your opinion, we can just ignore it, eh? It's obnoxious to present your personal opinions as having more weight than others (with fancy frame and colored background). It's illogical to demand changes and then object when people do the work you've asked for. Avt tor 04:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Use "SF" per the arguments of RLetson. Metamagician3000 01:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

MatthewFenton: As someone familiar with lexicography, I recognize that different speech (and subcultural) communities have different preferences. As a member of the vast academic/critical/professional-writing cabal, I'm voting my community's (and my personal) preferences. My experience has been that while some venues opt for necktie-and-suitcoat formality, most settle on what they deem to be a suitable acronymn or abbreviation. In thirty-some years of writing about SF, I have not worked for any publication or house that thought "sci-fi" appropriate, while SF has often been acceptable. But then, I haven't worked for the popular press, where it clearly is OK. (Can anyone nail down the current house-style dicta from Extrapolation, Science-Fiction Studies, Foundation and such? Maybe I'm out of synch.) RLetson 02:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Foundation seems to use the lowercase "sf". SFS uses the uppercase "SF", as does Extrapolation. At least that's what I found in flicking randomly through some recent issues just now. New York Review of Science Fiction seems to allow either - or perhaps it's just not good at enforcing its style. I can assure you that they none of them use "sci-fi". Metamagician3000 02:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Lower-case "sf" feels recent to me. Ihave seen British writers user lower-case abbreviations where an American writer would use upper-case. New York Review of Science Fiction is edited by Hartwell and Cramer, who certainly know custom, but they may not impose a specific editing style per se (as it's basically an upscale fanzine). I would defer to a source on capitalization. Avt tor 04:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It's just a matter of style. I think that using the caps is more common, and also more transparent to readers. Metamagician3000 08:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I speak for the rest of the world (There is several billion of us) just because your favourite publications use the two letters sf, SF (San Francisco, Soft fiction, short fiction, need I go on with possibilities?) doesn't make it right, a lot of these journals/magazines (whatever you wis to call them - I don't touch them) are written for a small minority group, I can say without a doubt "sci-fi" is used more extensively in the real world, but that's not the point, this is an encyclopaedia, we are also not paper (oh and we are, of course, better then Encyclopaedia Britannica) and the fact remains we don't need to use nonsensical terms like SF, nor do we need to use "sci-fi" thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 10:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

"I don't touch them"? "nonsensical"? If you are so hostile to science fiction, Fenton, why are you getting so involved in the editing of this article? I'm not trying to pick a fight; I'm genuinely puzzled by this.--Orange Mike 15:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Whenever I try to use the "lurkers support me in email" argument, it never seems to persuade people. I think anyone purporting to represent "several billion of us" should be able to find some sources to support their position. Nobody can speak authoritatively outside of their own provable credentials or at least identifiable social context. It's not logical to assert, without foundation, that other editors are somehow less connected to the "real world".

At any rate, WP:MOS permits this usage and WP:SIZE favors it. I would say that the fact that most people may not have been exposed to other literature in the subject area creates an obligation for us to educate people. Avt tor 16:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I've never said I dislike science fiction (I'd hope not I watch so many science fiction shows/read science fiction books :-\) - I don't touch the Journals or magazines (like I did say :-\) -- and I would edit this article my self and fix it flaws but I don't see why I should do it and then have someone revert me because there precious shortening is gone. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI IME as a native, SFO is the standard abbreviation for "San Francisco" by Bay Area residents. In any event, there is the small matter of context. Nobody's talking about Rice-a-Roni here. --Belg4mit 04:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thankfully, Wikipedia works on consensus, and I don't believe I have seen a single person supports MatthewFenton's view on this subject. It is common Wikipedia practice to use a common abbreviation where the full name would be clumsy. Take, for example, the article on People's Republic of China and observe the extensive use of PRC. Or the United States of America article and take in its usage of both U.S. and USA. There is no problem with using SF in an article about Science Fiction, either by Wikipedia standards, or with academic standards (as others have argued, it is extremely common in the field). As consensus seems to be SF is OK, please stop adding it to the To Do list. Patch86 20:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I would also be inclined to avoid indiscriminate use of SF/sf/sci-fi, as it seems to be a NPOV issue. If it's part of the identity of a group within science fiction culture, fine. To use it as a neutral abbreviation isn't perhaps proper, as it seems to have the value of being 'serious' science fiction implied when SF/sf is used. - Malkinann 22:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you might be drawing an incorrect conclusion. When someone says "That's not 'sci-fi', that's 'SF'." (Or "we call that 'SF', not 'sci-fi'".) Depending on context, I hear two possible interpretations: (1) The work in question is science fiction, but it does not fit into the (low-quality) subset defined as "sci-fi". Or (from people who take this too seriously) (2), "sci-fi" is not part of "science fiction". In both cases, "SF" serves merely as an abbreviation whose meaning is identical to SF. You seem to be interpreting statements like this as meaning that "SF" is the serious subset of science fiction. I've never heard anybody use the term that way.

I also draw your attention to WP:MOS#Acronyms_and_abbreviations, which recommends defining the abbreviation at the beginning of the article, for readers who may not be familiar with an abbreviation. Avt tor 22:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

So, sci-fi is a denotion of low-quality science fiction, and as such is value-laden, but SF denotes science fiction of a higher quality, and so is neutral? I don't get it.- Malkinann 22:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Often, the argument runs that "sci-fi" is a "trashy" subordinate of the science fiction genre (either in being a "space opera" (as in popular "sci-fi" such as Star Wars) or in being "pulp" fiction (as in the 1950's sci-fi comics)). SF, however, is merely the abbreviation of science fiction. So people may say "thats not SF, thats sci-fi", they're actually saying "thats not science fiction, thats sci-fi", only substituting the full name for it's neutral abbreviation.

Futhermore, the tendencies for fringes (as it is only the particularly over-enthusiastic fringes who tend to get worked up with the whole sci-fi / SF debate) to allocate meaning to a neutral abbreviation does not change it's neutrality ion common usage. Going back to my previous example, if a particular political group of nationalists start using the term "USA" in a jingoistic and far-right manner, it does not mean we should go through our article on the United States scrubbing it's usage. SF is an accepted abbreviation in the field, and the fact that some...well, Trekies, basically, attach a certain extra meaning to it doesn't mean we should remove all abbreviation from our article. Patch86 20:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Neither do I, and a citation wouldn't cut it either as it is purely non-NPOV and dubious considering those on the other side of the fence could easily say that SF denotes low quality, sci-fi denotes high quality. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Oy, this is getting tangled. 1) The connotation of "sci-fi" is a matter of subcultural attitudes--part of the science fiction reader/viewership finds it annoying, though other segments do not. 2) The use of SF (or sf) as a plain old abbreviation is pretty much not controversial in the same way, though there might be stylistic/decorum objections to it in particular publishing contexts. If there is any discussion or debate in which "SF" is opposed to "sci-fi" as part of a hierarchy of literary or intellectual value, I'm not aware of it, and it would not be at the center of any critical discussion. RLetson 23:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Definition section

I see that the discussion of terminology - SF versus sci-fi - has now ben included in this section. This material has nothing to do with the definition of the field. It is purely about terminology and the connotations of terms.

I also see that the only discussion of scholarly definitions of the field has been removed, while random quotes from Serling etc have been retained. There is a complex debate about the definition of the field which the Clute/Nicholls Encyclopedia summarises (though more has happened since). The leading figure involved in this debate is Darko Suvin, whose definition is the starting point for every discussion by anyone since the 1970s who seriously tries to define the genre (whether they agree with him or not ... personally, I think his approach is too narrow, but this article is not about what I happen to think). Clute and Nicholls highlight Suvin's definition as the most important one. If we are not going to record these facts in some cogent way, but are going to put in random clever quotes (even from someone as distinguished as Nabokov) we are misleading readers as to what the debate is all about. I intend to deal with this when there is time, but I am very unhappy about the way this section has been changed, by whoever did it, without agreement on the talk page (or even any discussion that I can see). A few days ago we seemed to be making progress with this article, and doing so through discussion and consensus, but now we are suddenly going backwards. Metamagician3000 01:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you please be more specific? (by linking to the last version with what you think is missing now, or quoting it) It might be that it went to the Definitions of science fiction article instead. -Malkinann 02:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I see that the para I had in mind has indeed been moved to the definitions of science fiction article. Maybe we need to work on getting that article right before we can fix this one (which probably should summarise whatever is over there). But what we have here at the moment seems rather arbitrary. Also, my point remains that the SF/sci-fi issue is nothing to do with the definition of science fiction. Metamagician3000 03:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been going through to-do lists and comments, trying to resolve every point that might cause people to object to GA status. The academic language was cited in a to-do list, so I moved it (certainly I didn't want to delete useful stuff). I tend to assume that requests made in good faith should be acted on. In moving the paragraph, I was not expressing a definitive opinion on relevance, length, or organization of the lead article or subordinate articles, all of which are cetainly subject to discussion. I was just ticking off a to-do item. Given how long the to-do list stayed there, I think we'd want to have a conversation before ignoring a point raised, but I don't have a strong opinion on the outcome. Avt tor 05:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The objection, as I understood it, was to the use of cryptic language, e.g. stating elliptically "as in Suvin's view that SF has a cognitive element". I plead guilty of causing that problem months ago before I realised that Wikipedia articles are supposed to be accessible to someone coming to an article with no background knowledge. At the time, I took seriously the claim that we are not supposed to dumb things down but can assume some technical knowledge. I now realise that things really need to be explained for an intelligent layperson who may have no technical knowledge at all. That, however, does not mean we can't use academic concepts, otherwise all our articles on science and mathematics would be in deep trouble. We just have to sure that we explain those concepts rather than merely alluding to them as we would in a discussion with someone who has studied a field from an academic viewpoint. In the case of this article, we should still be presenting the theoretical account(s) of the subject concerned, but not in some allusive way that will leave non-specialist readers wondering what is ... well, what is being alluded to. Metamagician3000 08:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm hearing "explain" as "word count". In my head I'm aiming for a newspaper/encyclopedia reading level, i.e. grade six or seven. I'm really hoping that someone else will come up with a brilliant solution to make everyone happy. Or, failing that, at least a couple of other opinions to guide us. Avt tor 16:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the following recent text from the Definition section: "The Definition of Pure Science Fiction is based on the presence of four attributes: -Elements of the strange and unusual -A strong, recurring theme -Elements of advanced technology and MOST IMPORTANTLY: -Must be BELIEVABLE." As well as the shouting and unusual grammar, it's clearly POV and does not fit at all with the rest of the article.Jesafin 16:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixing subordinate articles (not)

I see a couple people suggesting that we should fix one or another subordinate article as a prerequisite for approving this article. I don't agree. I look at organizing information as a top-down exercise: First a statement, then an explanation, then detail, which expands into sections, which in turn become separate documents, then collections of documents (directories, sites, etc.); subordinate areas of interest may develop their own constituencies to support them. If the top-level document node is well-written and well-organized, it will make it easier to fill in content in subordinate pages. In other words, I don't agree that we need to fix the History page, the Definitions page, etc. in order to complete this page. I want to remove the to-do item. Obviously we want to make an effort to synchronize the subordinate articles with the main page, I'm just making a suggestion about the order of doing the work. Avt tor 05:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I really agree with this, at least not if the sections of this article are meant to be summaries of what is in break-out articles. I don't see how we can summarise material that has not bedded down over in those other articles. Of course, we could do it the way you describe here, but not if important material is going to get shunted off somewhere else while we are still trying to get consensus on what needs to be said. I don't mind which way it is done, but trying to do both at once, guessing as we go what material might go where, seems incredibly confusing to me. Metamagician3000 08:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Metamagician3000; the history of this article's edits seem to me to indicate that the best way to handle the subject is bottom-up. If we can get good articles on history, definitions, terminology, and so forth, it might be possible to summarize those accurately and uncontroversially into this article. The reverse approach seems reasonable in theory, but in practice I don't think it's led to a good article here. Mike Christie (talk) 15:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I raised the point because (a) organizing information like this is a large part of what I do for a living, and building an information hierarchy top-down is a way of getting things done and (b) I'm lazy. :) Also the areas that mostly need to be worked on are a bit outside my direct expertise. I want to clear the to-do list, but the only way to get items off the list is to either complete the items or to remove items from the list; if people feel that (a specific and hopefully short list of) subordinate articles need to be fixed first, that's what we'd have to do. Avt tor 15:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think a natural list would be the set of articles referenced in the main article as "For more details, see also <foo>" under the section headings. There are other "See also"s embedded, but the main ones are done under section heads in that format and I think are the logical ones to attack first. Mike Christie (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I note that Malkinann and others are actually doing the work of updating the History of science fiction article. I'm certainly in favor; I was only questioning whether this should be a prerequisite. My only concern was about people's willingness to do the work; as I said, I just want to get items out of the to-do list. Avt tor 18:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe we should see how we go with tackling the definitions article and the history article. Both are very difficult and controversial subjects, unfortunately, but if we could get them in good shape we would then be very well placed to sort out the relevant sections here. Last I looked at the history article, I pretty much agreed with its contents, as I recall, but the definitions article is a bit of a mess. Anyway, I'll go and have a look at them when I get a minute. Metamagician3000 23:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree the definitions article is not in great shape; that's partly because it is halfway through being transformed from a list to an article. I was the person who created it in list format, and when it was changed to an article I winced, because I knew it had changed from an easy list to maintain to a very difficult article to write. I think it was probably the right decision, though. Mike Christie (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I changed the name of that article, because there was more material on the main science fiction page in the definition section than I thought fit there, so I moved content to the subordinate page. As with all other edits, this was just a suggestion; if there are serious objections, it could all be reverted back.

However, it has been my experience in the past that a well-thought out table of contents is a huge aid in helping an article make sense out of existing content, even if the sections that emerge stubby or blank initially. A good TOC also helps other (perhaps more knowledgeable) editors fill in sections. It seems to me that other editors have more useful information in this area, and I would be interested to read such on Wikipedia, so I really think a subordinate page on this point is warranted. (Eventually, perhaps. :) )Avt tor 00:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be reverted -- I think you did the right thing. It's just going to be hard knocking it into shape, that's all. It'll get there in the end. Mike Christie (talk) 00:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Cherryh ref

An objection was given to one of the references regarding C. J. Cherryh's influence. On the page in question, the specific sentence I was referring to was the sentence "Cherryh dominates the field", not the later comment about how Le Guin influenced Cherryh. Given the ambiguity, I removed this point and replaced with a comment from Vera Nazarian. Nancy Kress, Karl Schroeder, and Lois McMaster Bujold have all told me verbally about how Cherryh influenced them, but that's WP:OR; I found second-hand references asserting that Stephen Donaldson and Sharon Lee were influenced by Cherryh. I'm sure more references could be found, but two should suffice. Avt tor 20:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It looked to me that that page was all about LeGuin, and it wasn't easy to see how it supported the statement here. Thanks for checking it.  :) - Malkinann 22:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

"Re-imagining"

I removed some added wording in a section; it's useful to offer a couple of examples but, given the article length already, I think we need to encourage people to put detail on subordinate pages.

In the process, I also reverted a minor change of the word "re-make" to "re-imagining". That edit was restored. I then put the word "re-imagining" in quotes and removed redundant sources. Using multiple sources on a single point is appropriate if a point is very controversial, or if one is trying to assert a pattern and all one can find are exampless of the pattern. I would not have quibbled over more common usages such as "adaptation" or even "re-interpretation". I consider the text clarified, but it's a very minor issue if anybody else feels the need to change it. I wouldn't have touched it at all except that I was being lazy and didn't microanalyze it on the first pass. Avt tor 18:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I can certainly understand some dislike toward the term and find putting the words in quotes to be a good solution (I've done it/do it my self), other words such as re-interpretation don't seem to be appropriate however because I've never seen the creators/etc refer to it as anything else other then a "re-imagining" thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Speculative fiction again

I finally got around to editing that section, largely to cut the assertion that the term is "derived from" the initials SF (the Ketterer essay cited did not say that); and to fix a handful of inaccuracies and stylistic glitches that were bothering me. RLetson 05:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Propose Adding Publishers Section

Hello Science Fiction team-- I'd like to add a section, perhaps under History, for publishers who have specialized in Science Fiction, especially during the 1940s and 1950s. I have a good bit of information on publishers such as Doubleday Science Fiction, Winston, Fantasy Press, and Arkham House. These certainly aren't all, but it's a collectors area of the genre that is underdocumented.

There are some intersting paperback publishers that might also be considered, including ACE which was Andre Norton's publisher in the 60's and Ballantine. I don't have as much information on them, however.

Much of my research for these will come from my own collection and from additional searches in the Antiquarian Book Exchange (ABE)to flesh out authors, titles and years of publication. Often looking at publishers helps identify lesser known authors in the genre.

The entries will start our rather short but they will give me and others a structure to add to.

I have not done major edits before, so this will be my first contribution. To do it right it seems appropriate to check in with the group before I start putting things in.

I'll watch this page for a week or so before I start, since I don't have much time to work on this.

All suggestions to help me make the contribution better are appreciated.

Thank you.

Tom K. 16:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Tom

Might some of this be the dreaded original research? There are published accounts of this aspect of SF history available--the "Publishing" article in Clute & Nicholls and Paul A. Carter's chapter on the Golden Age in the 5th ed. of Anatomy of Wonder (esp. pp. 51-54) for starters. (Carter also refers to the not-as-easily-accessible but very comprehensive 3rd ed. of Chalker & Owings' historical bibliography The Science-Fantasy Publishers.) Perhaps better to draw on these rather than one's own researches. RLetson 17:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

This page is intended as a summary page linking to other articles. Any topic here, if noteworthy enough for inclusion, is noteworthy enough for a subordinate article. Given that we don't yet have prose on authors, I would find it hard to justify much more than a wikilink for publishers. Avt tor 22:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

These are excellent points. The sources mentioned for publishing make the section I proposed here moot. I'll investigate that and assess the appropriateness of perhaps adding a link from here to there. As I have just begun to explore the topic I did not realize you are missing information about authors. That might be a more fruitful contribution at this point. I'll explore the authors you cover and, if I can contribute someone new, I'll do that.

Thank you both for your guidance. Tom K. 18:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with doing articles on publishers (I just did one for Advent), along with writers and fans (there's nothing for Cy Chauvin or Earl Kemp). --Orange Mike 00:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Image removal?

The picture from the Roswell museum makes me cringe. Could we get rid of it? Clarityfiend 09:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's funny; to each their own tastes. It is quite difficult to find free images. This is an important section and I think an image is helpful here. I don't have a strong opinion about what image to use, so long as it represents any of the most common themes in SF. (Someone didn't like the free robot image I had here before.) Avt tor 22:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Galactica cloggage

The most recent addition to the "Subgenres" section is yet another mention of the new Battlestar Galactica, this time to make a perhaps-unnecessary point about how military SF can coexist with other subcategories. Might we declare some sort of cap on use of BG (and Star Wars and a few other over-exposed franchises) as examples, except when their relevance is crucial? This is the other side of the endless insertion of obscure examples (the game of "Ooh, ooh, I can add one, too!). I would think we would not want the genre to be understood primarily in terms of the highest-profile mass-media products or of trivia-contest factoids. Neither class of example is representative of the broad and varied range of materials available to illustrate the field. (BTW, the new passage includes a questionable notion of "soft science fiction" that deserves editing-out on its own merits. But that's a separate discussion.) RLetson 20:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

We certainly should not be weighting the article to whatever is topical or high-profile at the moment when we happen to be writing. Depending on how science fiction is thought of, its history goes back to at least the 1920s - on some conceptions to the nineteenth century, or even earlier - and our examples should cover the entire body of work that falls within the genre. Perspective, perspective. Metamagician3000 22:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand the sentiment about "cloggage"; I'm not a fan of that particular show. However, I think that mentioning popular works helps connect Wikipedia users to the subject matter. I also think that, in a paragraph discussing military SF, a single sentence about military SF on television is warranted, and in that sentence I think the most prominent examples should be used. Many SF shows contain military aspects, but Battlestar Galactica is a clear example where stories often obsess about minutiae of military life. In other words, the thing that makes this show annoying is exactly why it is relevant in this sentence, IMO. Space: Above and Beyond is an even more clear example (even though it was really stupid). I'd be happy to consider mentioning other shows, provided the examples were clearly military SF and were reasonably well known (this is more important for the television examples than the book examples). Avt tor 23:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

SF and language

I would like to see, and am volunteering to start, a subsection on creative language use in SF. Once sufficient examples have been collected, it can be hived off to create a new article. To start with, I can think of two sub-sub-sections: vocabulary and grammar. The former would be for the neologisms coined -- but not all of them, obviously, just notable and significant ones, or ones that began or epitomise a trend. The latter would cover, inter alia, verb tenses used to describe time travel. (I came up with the idea for this subsection while discussing Douglas Adams's Restaurant at the End of the Universe on the talkpage of Ursula K. LeGuin's Always Coming Home, and seeing the need for a place to make these connections.) Having recently run into opposition when trying to make structural edits to another article, I thought I would ask here first if anyone has any comments or ideas. Where, for example, do you think this section would best fit? BrainyBabe 07:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

My first reaction is to wonder whether this would reflect existing scholarship/commentary on language in SF or be original-research-y and thus present an almost-irresitible temptation to devolve into one of those free-for-all lists of Nifty Stuff I've Noticed, complete with all the wrangles that seem to accompany such things. If the former (and there is certainly some scholarship on this topic), it's a reasonable candidate; if the latter, then I'd say it's more trouble than it's worth once the (inevitable) piling-on starts. (And it too often ends with the material being deleted as OR anyway.) RLetson 19:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, Samuel R. Delany's theories about language in sf would be one obvious place to start with this - whether or not they are actually correct. There's a lot of material that's been written about this topic, and it's controversial. I'd first check to see what the relevant entry in the Clute/Nicholls encyclopedia says, and also check whether there's a relevant article and bibliography in the Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy. That should be helpful in avoiding going off into original research. Metamagician3000 09:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is a summary of information on subordinate pages. First, I don't think you can separate science fiction and fantasy in this context; an article about created fiction languages which failed to mention Tolkien (or even M.A.R. Barker) would be grossly incomplete. Second, such an article would be properly linked from the List of science fiction themes page, not from here. I happen to think artificial languages are cool (see my own user page for reference), but it's also a somewhat obscure topic, not really central to an understanding of SF as a whole, IMO, which is why it should be linked from the subordinate (list of themes) page, not from here. At most, it would be included as a link in the "Ideas" section, not as a section in its own right. Third, I think an article on the subject of languages in SF&F would be a great idea, if someone wanted to start it and research it. Avt tor 23:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Hang on, there seem to be two quite separate topics that we could be talking about - maybe even three. There is the use of artificial languages, a la Tolkien. Then there is the theory of how science fiction uses language - i.e. how does the use of language by sf writers (e.g., to convey the look and feel of a future society or world) differ from that in "mainstream" fiction? Delany has written the seminal articles on that topic, and it is what I thought BrainyBabe was talking about. Delany's views aside, there is an enormous amount of academic work around which discusses this. I seem to recall that Damien Broderick has done some good work on it somewhere, for example. But there is also the issue of language as a theme in science fiction - here, the locus classicus is surely Delany's novel Babel-17, but I also think immediately of Jack Vance's The Languages of Pao. Anyone wanting to write on this theme in sf should start with the "Linguistics" entry in Clute and Nicholls. However, it would really have to be its own article - it would be a bit peripheral to this one, and would become quite extensive if done properly. Metamagician3000 23:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you to the editors contributing above. Faced with such an overwhelming display of erudition, I shamefacedly withdraw my offer to create this subsection. As you point out, this would soon become a very large page in its own right. I do not have easy access to the texts mentioned. Indeed, I had little but the germ of the idea, which I recognise is not sufficient. If anyone else wishes to start this worthwhile and fascinating project, I offer to copyedit it and assist with style. Just put a note on my talkpage. BrainyBabe 11:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Not global

This article seems to mostly ignore non-Western (and non-Japanese) contributions to this genre. For example, Science fiction and fantasy in Poland...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  07:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "ignore" per se. Unfortunately, most of the editors involved in this topic don't know as much about non-Anglophone SF as we do about that which is available in English. Please, if you can contribute, do so! --Orange Mike 20:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I wrote the above article about Polish sci-fi. I know a little about Russian, but not enough to write an article about it right away.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Dziękuję - the article is really good; but, please, don't call it 'sci-fi'! --Orange Mike 04:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh, why not? :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, the expression "sci fi" is a little bit controversial. :) Metamagician3000 05:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Where can I read about this controversy? :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

In the main article, under "Definitions"! --Orange Mike 06:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, both the terms "sf" and "sci-fi" are controversial here, best to use the non-ambiguous "science fiction" Matthew 23:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

One objection does not constitute "controversy". Avt tor 20:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should re-look at the talk pages and recount, predominantly, however, this page is watched by the "sf"ers. Matthew 20:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The article seems to have been overtrimmed, or else good source material could not be found. It does not make clear that some people connected with science fiction consider the term sci-fi to be offensive. Foolish or not. Others consider it to be a term for what they would call the junk part of science fiction (bad films, etc.), and use it in a derogatory sense. It is therefore much more neutral to avoid this term in an article which has pretensions to both understand the field and to be serious about it: some readers would consider that using the term freely meant that the authors lacked all credibility (as if the article on helicopters called them whirlybirds throughout). There has been considerable discussion and controversy on this talk page over the years, perhaps that is what is referred to. Notinasnaid 20:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

From Clute & Nicholls, 1993, pp1078-1079, after explaining that the term has begun to be pronounced "skiffy": "...has perhaps come to become less condemnatory. Skiffy is colourful, sometimes entertaining, junk sf. Star Wars is skiffy". Notinasnaid 20:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

SF = pejorative?

I noticed that Matthew recently converted many uses of "sf" to "science fiction", with an edit summary note implying that the abbreviation "sf" is pejorative. I've never heard that it is regarded as pejorative by anybody who would not also regard "science fiction" as a pejorative term; I'd be interested to know what Matthew was referring to. If Matthew should turn out to be mistaken about this, then I'd also suggest that we reverse this edit -- using an abbreviation, once it's established at the top of the article, is a fairly standard style and avoids clunky repetition. Mike Christie (talk) 14:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, apparently it's just as insulting as the usage of "sci-fi", (which I'm sure would be converted if someone was to use it in their writing..), "sf" is considering by most true science fiction fans to be the "back-end" of science fiction (e.g. Star Wars), where as "sci-fi" denotes the "good" science fiction (e.g. Star Trek or Doctor Who). None the less a small minority of fans believe "sci-fi" to be pejorative as well, thus it's of course best to use neutral writing (as per WP:NPOV). Matthew 14:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

You'll find an enormous amount of discussion of this already. However, it has largely focussed on the problem that SF is not an unambiguous abbreviation of science fiction, some in the field having consciously redefined it as speculative fiction, and hence broader. I would note that in my experience, sci-fi is often used in a pejorative way, while SF is not. I don't recall what the consensus was the last time it was discussed, but I recommend picking up the discussion rather than just starting again as if it never happened. Notinasnaid 15:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of the previous discussion; you're right that I should probably have appended my note to that. Sorry about that. However, I don't recall Matthew previously asserting that "sf" is actually pejorative; I thought that was a new comment. He has previously argued for the removal of both "sf" and "sci-fi". In this section, above, it seems from their comments that Avt tor, RLetson, Orange Mike, Metamagician3000, Patch86, and Belg4mit all support the use of the abbreviation. The arguments against were made by Matthew and Malkinann. Although we're looking for consensus here, rather than a vote, I do think that the 7 to 2 majority in favour of the use of the abbreviation should carry some weight. I'd be willing to change my mind if Matthew could provide some evidence that "sf" is regarded as pejorative -- there are certainly numerous sources that can be provided to say that "sci-fi" has negative connotations, but without some similar source for Matthew's remarks I don't think his comments outweigh the points in favour of the use of "sf" made by various others above. Mike Christie (talk) 15:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This is an interesting read, to quote one, "[..] I think the more interesting question is why it's so damned important to some people.". I've be one of the only ones, in this almost nine month discussion, to offer the most logical compromise, i.e. don't use any abbreviations at all, thus avoiding debates like these. The MOS also states formal writing is preferred. Matthew 16:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

As stated above, formal writing includes abbreviations. I suggest you try looking at some style guides. The various standards (APA, MLA, Chicago) and journals take different stances (not in titles or abstracts, a limited dictionary) but none seem thick-headed enough to ban them outright. Part of the purpose of writing about a topic is to a) make it clear and concise for those whom have a passing familiarity with it and b) familiarize "virgins" with the the field's parlance. We're not bandying about terms like filk, risthara, etc. without explanations. We're using an obvious, common, short-form of the name of the topic at hand.

As for why it's so important? I feel it's "important" to resist the dumbing down of anything, be it eschewing things falsely characterized as obfuscation or people telling me I can't use an alternate name for something I enjoy because others get their hackles up about it (and apparently telling me I should too).

The MOS is neither set in stone (none of the WP "rules" should be applied as dogmatically as they often are), nor as clear about the matter as you would have one believe. That particular excerpt is in reference to contractions, and also says to employ idiomatic language as appropriate. --belg4mit 18:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Matthew is the only person on the face of the planet who pretends to believe that "sf" or "SF" is pejorative; it seems to be his way of getting back at those of us who have tried to inform him of the strong dislike for, and pejorative use of, the term "sci-fi" by science fictionists. Since either "sf" or spelled-out "science fiction" does the job, I'm certainly not going to waste any time reverting any change from the abbreviation. I just didn't want you, Belg4mit, to think anybody takes the "pejorative" assertion seriously. --Orange Mike 19:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought we had previously arrived at a consensus to neither use SF nor sci-fi in passing (but to define them). Of course in a busy talk page it's easy to lose track. Some previous discussions (all in the talk archive) include [1] [2] [3][4] [5] [6] [7].

Of course, the debate can be re-opened at any time, but I don't think people have been referring to all of it. If re-opening the debate, I think it would be valuable at least to understand that the debate about using SF (sf, S.F., s.f.) is entirely different from the debate about using sci-fi. It might indeed be useful to rehearse all the arguments for and against each of the two abbreviations (nobody seems to be voting for stf). Notinasnaid 20:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

"Prediction"

The article states that Clarke "predicted" communications satellites. I'm not sure this is wholly true. Indeed, I seem to recall that those who followed were inspired by the concept as presented. Aren't there numerous examples of this in hard sci-fi? --Belg4mit 13:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Clarke described exactly how they would work, complete with the orbits they would have to follow; I suspect that if the technology had been in place, he would have been able to patent the concept. This, like waldos, is more a genuine prediction than most of the so-called "predictions" for which SF of all kinds is given credit, from television to the internet. Contrary to the idea that most mundane journalists in particular seem to get, prediction is not the primary goal of SF. --Orange Mike 18:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Though if you go back to his original proposal for how it might work his vision was actually rather different from whst ended up taking place. That said, yes, surely he did more than predict it: he actually pushed it along. Metamagician3000 23:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a problem with, in this article, describing Clarke as having "predicted" communications satellites (though he did indeed invent the idea to a sufficient extent that he has sometimes said he wishes he patented it). As the source makes clear, he did not do so in a science fiction story, but in a technical paper (in fact, it was published in Wireless World). This is interesting stuff for the article on Arthur C. Clarke, but it is tenuous to use out-of-genre work to support conclusions in an article specifically on science fiction. I would support removing it. Notinasnaid 08:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Mediation on sf/SF/science fiction

I just reverted one of Matthew's "sf" -> "science fiction" edits; he reverted it back. We discussed it on my talk page, and we're both willing to take this to mediation if we can settle the issues. I'd like to get consensus here that mediation is worth it; my experience is that all active editors have to be willing to either participate or abide by the outcome, otherwise the mediation has no traction.

To be specific, the question at issue is the use of the terms "sf", "SF", "sci-fi", and "science fiction". Are any of them pejorative terms that should be avoided? Are any insufficiently formal for use in the article?

If nobody objects I'll file a mediation request. I'm travelling for the next two weeks, though, and may be a bit slow about getting to it, but will do so eventually. Mike Christie (talk) 22:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Many of those questions could be "anwered" by reading other portions of the talk page. Personally, I find none of them offensive, but think "sf" sounds goofy and "PC" ("it offends my own contrived sensibilities so nobody else can use it") so I stick with the traditional "sci-fi". Formality is not an issue, consistency within the body is though; just be sure all common terms given up front, xref-ing as appropriate. --Belg4mit 23:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't notice that you had partcipated in the previous discussion above. I concur with Rletson below, Matt is being a twit and is twisting the intention of policy (which is not to be taken as dogma anyhow). --Belg4mit 00:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I've read the extension of the discussion on Mike Christie's page and can't think of anything to add to his laying-out of the evidence. Mike deals with Matthew's arguments and position quite tactfully; I will be slightly less so and say that Matthew's assertions seem to me quite idiosyncratic. In forty-some years of moderate but attentive contact with SF's fan, academic, and professional communities, I have not encountered anything that supports Matthew. And if he can't supply evidence for his position, I don't see why this article should be written to suit his notion. But if it takes mediation to stop the fussing, so be it. RLetson 00:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

In agreement with RLetson and Belg4mit, and would note that mediation is fine.Shsilver 01:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I lean toward the use of "science fiction" because, first, nobody objects to it and, second, everybody knows what it means. Also, slang dates quickly, and seems unencyclopedic. "SciFi" was constructed by analogy to "HiFi". Imagine an article on stereo equipment that described a high end sound system as "HiFi" these days. Also, SciFi suggests one particular venue, the SciFi channel. If the SciFi channel goes out of business, I suspect the slang term SciFi will drop out of the language quickly. Rick Norwood

Can you cite a reference for your "HiFi" theory? As for "unencyclopedic", it's perfectly reasonable to use abbreviations in an academic context. Writing out the same phrase over and over is tedious, as is reading it. That's why you use a mixture of the two. --Belg4mit 19:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Forrest Ackerman, who is popularly credited with coining the term "sci fi," has stated repeatedly that the term was based on "hi fi." A reference is made to this on the Forrest Ackerman wiki page and I've also seen it in print, on the web, and heard it in conversations with Forry. Perhaps I'll look up a specific citation for it later. Shsilver 17:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia prefers formal writing as per the MoS. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (abbreviations) states they are OK for common terms, the pejorative ess-eff is a term used by a certain niche group of fans. Clearly the only usage of this term is to try and promote non-neural terms which are only used by that certain group. Matthew 13:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

With five editors agreeing to participate, or at least abide by, the outcome of the mediation, I think we have enough to make it worthwhile. Matthew's post above also makes it clear we're still too far apart for consensus. I'll post a request there today and will follow up here with a link to the request. As I recall, it can take days or weeks for a mediator to take a case, so it may be a while. Mike Christie (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've posted the request. See the link at the top of this talk page. Mike Christie (talk) 13:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Matthew, you say these things without proof. And there's nothing clear about them. I could just as easily say "a niche group of finds are offended by the term 'ess-eff' and find it perjorative." Now, who's right? Based on the discusions that have passed here, and various citations given, the idea that none of them actually offensive is a more reasonable position. That some people make a big deal of finding a simple abbreviation offensive does *not* make it un-"NPOV." That would be stating that true fans call it "sci-fi", and only "losers" use "sf." Death to the "U.S.", "Uni.Sta." forever :-P --Belg4mit 19:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The onus is on you to prove it's neutral and used by people outside your niche group. Matthew 19:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Whence does this logic derive? I say the word Matthew offends me, I only like the name Matt (rhymes with cat). Now you must prove it's not offensive before you can use it. We're not talking about racial or gender slurs here, but bleeping common abbreviations to improve the quality of the text. Just as a text overusing "I" is bad form:

   I ate waffles this morning, then I walked the dog. I hate walking the dog.
   I was wearing my galoshes so it was okay he piddled on me. I washed the
   shoes when I got home. I accidentally sprayed my pants with the hose, so I
   had to change. I was therefore late for work. I might lose my job.

constant repetition of any subject word for word should be avoided:

   Bob ate waffles this morning, then Bob walked the dog. Bob hates walking the
   dog. Bob was wearing his galoshes so it was okay the dog piddled on him. Bob
   washed his shoes when he got home. Bob accidentally sprayed his pants with the
   hose, so Bob had to change. Bob was therefore late for work. Bob might lose his 
   job.

It contributes to a staccato tone. --Belg4mit 16:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Matthew, I'm going to be as direct as possible: Your assertions about the usage and connotations of "SF" are simply mistaken. A number of sources that use the abbreviation have already been pointed out, and a survey of popular and academic works of commentary, history, and criticism would reveal many more. It is not a "niche" usage but an extremely common one. It is not pejorative but indeed neutral and descriptive. The only situation I can imagine in which "SF" might be used pejoratively would be one in which science fiction itself was being disparaged--and that's not the same thing as a pejorative term.

The formality issue is a separate one, and purely a matter of settling on what forms and usages are appropriate for the entry--and on this matter I'd point out that the unmistakably encyclopedic Encyclopedia of Science Fiction uses the lower-case variant, and that SF/sf has been acceptable in just about every venue where I have published essays and reviews over the last thirty-plus years (including Locus, which is read by a wide range of SF writers, editors, agents, and artists).

These points have been made and supported with evidence in the Talk threads--some more than once. Re-read the threads. Look up the sources. Can you offer anything to rebut the position that SF is (whatever its formality quotient) simply a widely-used abbreviation? We've shown our cards--what do you have?

Side note to Rick Norwood: "Sci-fi" had a gray beard before the Sci-Fi Channel was hatched, so I doubt that its survival depends on the continued existence of the network. Slang that passes the half-century mark starts to look a lot like the rest of the language, and "sci-fi" is pushing 60. RLetson 07:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I wonder to what extent sf vs. SF is Brit. vs. US ? Kdammers 10:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been a fan of science fiction since I bought the September 1955 issue of Imaginative Tales, featuring "Terror Station" by Dwight V. Swain. There are two subjects here -- first what science fiction fans understand, second what non-sf fans understand. Of course the Science Fiction Encyclopedia and Locus use sf. They are written for fans.

In the sixties, there was a brouhaha over sci-fi, mainly addressed to Forry Ackerman's use of the phrase. In general, sercon fans (FIWOL fans) hated sci-fi, and sometimes pronounced is "skiffy" in derision, or suggested a return to Hugo Gernsback's scientifiction. The preferred and almost universal abbreviation was sf. But that was within fandom. Outside fandom, if I said "sf" or "sci-fi" in the 1950s, nobody would have understood what I was talking about.

Then came Star Wars, and the media latched onto sci fi. They never did adopt sf. Thus, from the time of Star Wars on, sci fi was what the non-fannish media called our genre. Many fans hated this, except Forry, who felt vindicated. They felt as if the media were putting them down. Often they were.

Now, of course, there is a new generation of fans, to whom sci-fi sounds perfectly normal, and who have never been accused of wearing propeller beanies or believing in "that crazy Buck Rogers stuff."

In any case, Wikipedia is not being written for science fiction fans, who are the only ones who use the abbreviation sf, which has never been derogatory. (I think what Matthew is remembering is the idea that sci-fi is considered derogatory by some.)

Reasons for using "science fiction": Everybody knows what it means. It sounds encyclopedic.

Reasons for not using "sf": Is it sf or SF. If it begins a sentence, is it Sf? Nobody knows that abbreviation outside fandom. (Ask your mailman what "sf" is an abbreviation for.)

Reasons for not using "sci-fi": Is it scifi, sci-fi, Sci-Fi, SciFi, or skiffy? To many people, it sounds derogatory. It is unencyclopedic. It is associated with the evil SciFi Channel.

Of course, the article needs to mention abbreviations, but I don't think the article should be peppered with them.

Rick Norwood 14:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Another thing is, sf and sci-fi are different things to me -- outside of fan media, etc, I've not seen sf used. I don't think anybody would deny "sci-fi" is the more common term... but it's apparently pejorative to the "sf-ers". I personally don't see a need to promote usage of either term (hence why I've promoted usage of "science fiction" for the past year (or so, I think))... they're both stated in the lead-in, why is there a need to write informally within the article? Which the MoS discourages. Personally I don't believe we've ever reached a true consensus as (and nobody can deny this) we've not really had neutral discussion, the majority of editors who are interested in this article are the sf-ers... and so they support usage of sf. Matthew 14:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Skiffy is another matter entirely. With respect to the rest, you're just advancing your own biases (evil SciFi Channel), and ignoring that the point of the discussion is to indeed settle on "a style guide" favoring one form (e.g; sci-fi) over another (sCifI). Even assuming Joe Six-pack doesn't know what an abbreviation means, it is perfectly acceptable to use a term, or abbreviation once it is is defined (and they are defined in the intro. [oh wait, I didn't define that! :-P]). Writing an encyclopedia for a mass audience does not mean babying them and necessarily writing for a 1st grade reading level; that's hyperbole by the way. --Belg4mit 16:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think "sci-fi" should be used, for the reasons given in several places. (I don't think anyone is currently arguing it should.) My problem with "science fiction" is that it sounds very clumsy because it is repeated so many times in the article. It's good encyclopaedic practice to use some abbreviation within a given entry. Using Nichols as an example again, within author entries they abbreviate mentions of that that author to their initials -- I don't have my copy with me, but as I recall van Vogt is "AEVV" throughout that article. The use of an abbreviation, if correctly established early in the article, is good encyclopedic style.

I think there's a legimitate debate about formality, though as I say I personally don't see a problem with "sf" or "SF". As to whether "SF" is a pejorative term, I would very much like it if this mediation persuaded Matthew to either provide cites or stop making that assertion; it muddies the debate about the use of an abbreviation, and makes it harder for us to reach consensus. Mike Christie (talk) 17:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

No serious and reliable secondary source uses "sci-fi"; it's as simple as that. All the serious sources - reputable encyclopedias such as Clute/Nicholls, academic monographs, refereed journals, the more serious fanzines, etc. - use "sf" or "SF". If this were any other article, that would be the end of the story. I believe it should be with this article, as well. As for whether we should spell out "science fiction" every time, no one else does that, so why should we? We just announce whichever abbreviation we decide to use. I don't care whether it's "sf" or "SF". Both are acceptable. Metamagician3000 13:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

My feeling is that writing out the full term "science fiction" is more friendly to readers who aren't in science fiction fandom.-Malkinann 06:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I think everyone has expressed their opinion and that we've started to repeat ourselves.

(Purely as an aside, if you don't think the Sci-Fi channel is evil for firing Ellen Datlow, ask Ursula LeGuin about the SciFi channel some time.) Rick Norwood 13:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Rick's memory of the history of the terms is close to mine (I started reading Heinlein juveniles in the middle 1950's.) In spite of that, I now think of "SF" as "speculative fiction", including science fantacy and magical tales; "sf" as a capitalization error of "SF"; and sci-fi as Hollywood's way of spelling "space opera". I'd have a sentence in the opening paragraph with something like ... science fiction (sometimes herein called "SF") ... and alternate between "science fiction" and "SF" in some subtle puzzle pattern. htom 22:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

But The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction uses sf (lower case) except when it is part of a title or longer phrase. Which is another reason to just use science fiction. The mystery genre gets along without an abbreviation, after all. Rick Norwood 12:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Rick--It's purely a style-book matter. When I started writing for Locus it was lower-case; now it's upper-case. Abbreviations reflect a pub's notions of formality, convenience, and audience savvy. I have no problem with a no-abbreviations policy, but I have to say that in my experience it's a minority practice. (But if it once and for all precludes the faux-democractic "sci-fi," I'm all for it.) RLetson 17:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Adding Innovation

While the history of science fiction criticism has been catalogued extremely well, more and more literature is being produced about how science fiction has helped shaped the progress of technology and how it will continue to do so. I felt it is an aspect of science fiction that will be more wide spread as today’s developing technology nears the futuristic qualities writers developed years ago. If anyone has any critiques of my information or would like to add to this topic, please don’t hesitate. Arestad 19:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

agreed, There are several history channel shows about the advances of worm-hole innovation being spurred by Carl Sagan's Contact and several innovations being created out of ideas from star trek —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.32.35 (talk) 22:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

a Article

At the top of this discussion page is a box with ratings, including "Article This article is a Article." What in the world does this mean? kdammers (Tilde key doesn't work.)

I think it means "an article", rather than "a stub" or "a redirect". You're correct about the a/an. htom 15:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation: Propose closing the case

The mediation page has been inactive for a while, sporadic discussion seems to be continuing here, and arguments seem to be getting re-hashed. If no one objects here, I will mark the mediation as closed (unresolved) and remove the tag from this discussion page. dr.ef.tymac 14:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok with me -- I was hoping it would drive us to a conclusion but it does not seem to have done so. I will try a straw poll to see if that can get us to a final answer.

Straw poll on abbreviations

I would still like to get the discussion on abbreviations to a consensus so it doesn't have to be rehashed every few months. I suggest a straw poll as follows.

Please place your signature under each of the following that you find an acceptable solution. Indicate your preferred solution, if you have one, by some means such as adding "(preferred)". Anything you do not place your sig under is assumed to be not acceptable to you; that is, you feel it is actually a bad way to write the article.

1. The phrase science fiction should never be abbreviated in the article, except to mention that abbreviations such as "sci-fi" and "SF" exist, and to comment on them.

1. Malkinann 02:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
2. RLetson 05:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC) (Purely as a stylistic matter--tolerable but not preferable.)
3. Metamagician3000 07:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC) Not preferred, on stylistic grounds, but I can live with it.
4. Per MoS. Matthew 07:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
5. Rick Norwood 17:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC) "Never" may be too strong, but I think abbreviations should be kept to a minimum.
6. --Orange Mike 19:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
7. Benjamin.s.quigley (talk) 23:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC) Just passing through, but I can't stand these abbreviations and find them poor style.

2. The abbreviation "SF" can be used for science fiction in the article, after being introduced as an abbreviation, in order to reduce the number of repetitions of "science fiction".

1. Preferred. Mike Christie (talk) 15:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
2. htom 15:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
3. Shsilver 16:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
4. dr.ef.tymac 17:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
5. Preferred RLetson 05:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
6. Metamagician3000 07:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC) Preferred. Probably the more common approach in the reliable sources.
7. Preferred Kdammers 07:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
8. Good style dictates variety. Belg4mit 13:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
9. --Orange Mike 19:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
10. Preferred Patch86 15:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

3. The abbreviation "sf" can be used for science fiction in the article, after being introduced as an abbreviation, in order to reduce the number of repetitions of "science fiction".

1. Mike Christie (talk) 15:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
2. Shsilver 16:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC) (but it should be one or the other: SF or sf)
3. RLetson 05:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC) (Weak second to "SF.")
4. Metamagician3000 07:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC) Used by Nicholls/Clute and others. Would be happy with this, though "SF" is probably a wiser choice.
5. Agree with metamagician3000: SF is more to my taste.Kdammers 07:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
6. Good style dictates variety. Belg4mit 13:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

4. The abbreviation "sci-fi" can be used for science fiction in the article, after being introduced as an abbreviation, in order to reduce the number of repetitions of "science fiction".

1. Good style dictates variety. Belg4mit 13:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyone think a straw poll is a bad idea? I don't like voting, but I think we need to settle this, and I'm hoping a strong majority will emerge for one or other approach. Mike Christie (talk) 15:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you'll find anything but a temporary majority; this is one of those "holy wars" that is never going to be settled. htom 15:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with htom's assertion, although I am still wondering why this "war" (if it is in fact so prevalent) is not simply documented in the article itself as one of the persistent sources of contention among fans, commentators, authors etc. Surely this dispute must be documented somewhere. dr.ef.tymac 17:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking for here. Information on the usage of "sci-fi" is indeed documented in the article. The article does not comment on the question of whether "sf" or "SF" is pejorative, as Matthew is the only editor who has asserted this, and he has given no sources. The other question at issue is a purely stylistic one: whether we should abbreviate "science fiction" to make the article read more easily. That wouldn't be a topic for the article, of course. Mike Christie (talk) 17:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Second Mike Christie's reading of the situation re: style and the putatitive-pejorative. And apparently there's no definitive and permanent solution to the stylistic (or any other) issue as long as WP remains a faux democracy. RLetson 05:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. --Belg4mit 13:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Here here. Kdammers 07:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean "Hear, hear". GlassFET 19:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Summary of outcome

It's been a day since anyone posted, and I think every prior participant who is currently active has posted now. Avt tor hasn't posted, but as I recall he supported what has turned out to be the majority view, so the outcome would not likely have changed. So here's my take.

1. We can eliminate the options of using "sf" or "sci-fi" as abbreviations in the article. Many who voted for "sf" said it was a second choice to "SF". Nobody voted for "sf" who did not also vote for either "SF", "no abbreviations", or both. Only one person found "sci-fi" acceptable. I think this represents such a strong majority that this can be called a consensus.

2. That leaves, as perhaps we might have expected, "no abbreviation" (which I will refer to as "None" from now on for brevity) or "SF". Ignoring the eliminated options, the breakdown is:

• 3 said only "None" is acceptable
• 6 said only "SF" is acceptable
• 2 accepted either, but said "SF" is preferred
• 1 accepted either, with no preference indicated.

If we were to treat this as a vote, it could be regarded as somewhere between 8 to 3 in favour of "SF", to perhaps 9 to 6 in favour of "SF", depending on how one interprets a "vote".

I would like to ask those in the minority on this point to accept the majority viewpoint in the interests of consensus. Specifically I am thinking of this paragraph in the consensus guideline, in which this is quoted: "those who disagree strongly but concede that there is a community view and respect it on that level". Can those who voted for "No abbreviation" agree that there is a consensus here they disagree with, and agree to abide by it, until the consensus changes?

Specifically, Malkinann, Matthew, and Rick Norwood, can you comment on the outcome I've outlined above? You are the three who indicated approval solely for having no abbreviations in the article. Mike Christie (talk) 22:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It's been four days and none of the three editors who dislike the "SF" abbreviation have commented yet. So instead, here's a question for the other editors here. Does this constitute a consensus to use "SF" to some extent in the article, as an abbreviation for "science fiction"?

If it is agreed that we have a consensus (I believe we do), then I propose to change the article to include "SF". I hope the other editors would respect that, but if they do not I propose to revert (within 3RR) to the version with the abbreviations. If others agree, and also revert edits that disagree with the consensus, then that will implement the consensus.

If we do not agree that we have a consensus, we're no further along, and I will stop trying to resolve this issue. Mike Christie (talk) 19:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good -- well, not good, but ok -- and it is acceptable to me. htom 20:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If "consensus" means "everybody finally agrees to go along, no matter what their private opinion," then we will never have it. If if means "we hashed it out and took a vote and figured a way that most participants can live with," then we're close enough for folk music. And maybe even for Wikipedia. The discontented we have always with us. RLetson 03:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, guess so. Metamagician3000 05:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, next time I get a chance I'll rewrite the article appropriately. It's likely to be this weekend. If anyone else wants to do it, go ahead. Mike Christie (talk) 10:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Findings: The preceeding by Mike Christie represents a good-faith effort to resolve a pending dispute and reach an acceptable resolution through consensus. Reasonable efforts have been made to give all interested parties an opportunity to respond. Reasonable efforts have been made to evaluate a wide range of alternatives and means for compromise.

Absent a substantial and compelling rationale to the contrary, the following should be considered a Guideline for this article:

• the words "science fiction" may be abbreviated; and
• the abbreviation "SF" is considered the acceptable abbreviation to the exclusion of other alternatives, either enumerated here in this discussion or elsewhere;

All pending requests for mediation or review are hereby concluded. dr.ef.tymac 15:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind the article using "SF" sometimes, as long as the use is not predominant, and editors who refer to it on talk pages by either the full term or the other abbreviation (the dreaded "sci-fi" ;) ) aren't admonished. I've been avoiding joining the science fiction wikiproject because of the terminology debate going on here, and I hope that the consensus reached here can be extended to the wikiproject, and that we can get on with improving this article.-Malkinann 10:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Abbreviation pass done

I have done a pass, abbreviating some references to "science fiction" to "SF". I've tried to pick places to abbreviate where the use of "SF" would give some variety and lighten repetition; I've also used it in a few places where it just seemed a smoother way to write the sentence -- e.g. in several places in the discussion of hard sf. Please tweak or change my choices as you see fit. Mike Christie (talk) 14:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

First SF author forgotten?

The first "True" SF story, about travel to the Moon, was written by no other than Johannes Kepler. The story discusses such facts as diminshing gravity and diminishing air pressure, both unexplained at the time.

It's mentioned in the History of Science Fiction article that's linked at the top of the "History" section. RLetson 16:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Magitech

I'm intersted in something involved in Science fiction, and some Science Fantasy. It is something called Magitech, where science and magic are used in the one devise, bth needed for it. this is different from just spells cast of scientic technology, as that is Technomancy. Please tell me what you have found relating to it. Corrupt one 02:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

GA Quick Fail

I'm sorry, this article was quick failed per the GA criteria, as it has a maintainence template on it. Giggy _U^CP 09:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use of images concerns

I'm a bit concerned that this article may exceed the limits of fair use for having so many book covers, DVD packaging, movie posters, etc., that aren't used for critical analysis of the book, DVD, film, etc. Anybody else given this some thought? 24.6.65.83 11:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Entering the mainstream in lit.

Science Fiction has definitely lost its "taboo" in literary circles, I think. My (English) master's thesis is something you might call "science fiction". And -- atleast at my university -- the humanities are realizing more and more that technology and science are very human topics. UAlbany has a huge school of nanoscale science and engineering now, so they developed this big-money organization the Center for the Humanities and Technoscience that does stuff like poetry about global warming, speculative fiction and theater productions, etc. It's cool stuff. I'm not sure if it would have a place in this article though... Check out the program at [[8]] , though if you want to know more. MartinDuffy 08:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I wish I could agree with you. Read the NY Times obituary of Vonnegut; heck, read the reviews of, and the Wikipedia talk page on, the McCarthy novel The Road (where we get the tire old "this isn't sci-fi; it's literature!" argument thrown in our face); etc. --Orange Mike 03:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Harold Bloom's slam of Doris Lessing's Nobel Prize definitely implies that he considers writing science fiction evidence that Lessing has declined into a fourth-rate writer. --Orange Mike 15:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Harold Bloom is a horse's arse. He also considers reading Harry Potter proof that a child is mentally deficient. Rick Norwood 18:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

He is, alas, taken quite seriously by many people. More to the point, I think he's representative of the continuing prejudices and antipathies. --Orange Mike 18:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Ideas

I'm not sure that the Ideas section really adds a whole lot to the page the way it is currently formatted/written. Rather than simply delete it, I thought I'd raise the point here to see if people wanted to defend what is currently basically a laundry list or if anyone wanted to re-write the section to make it more useful. Shsilver 15:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's very low value as it stands. Turned into a section discussing the history and evolution of ideas in sf it could be quite valuable. Mike Christie (talk) 19:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Rehaul

Without discussion and any try to get consent (the Jimmy Wales principle of "Be bold!!"), I restructured the section of "Related genres and Subgenres" so that I can orient myself within it easier. If you don't like it, there's always a possibility to revert - but my intention was to insert headings for each subgenre mentioned, and a link to the main article. That way anyone interested in f.ex. "Cyberpunk" may click on "Cyberpunk" in the ToC and directly find relevant information there. Also: I put Subgenres first, and Related genres second. The article is primarily (primus = the first) about SF genres, secondarily (secundus = the second [Sic!]) about related genres. I imagine a reader of the article "Science Fiction" is primarily interested in SF, and secondarily about similar stuff. Said: Rursus ☻ 17:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

H.P. Lovecraft and Kenneth J. Sterling

I have added a brief mention of H.P. Lovecraft and Kenneth J. Sterling due to their contribution to the genre in their tale "Into the Walls of Eryx". The story is considerably different then Lovecraft's normal tales of rural horror, and it is a tale with merit, and worthy of mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.250.198.220 (talk) 03:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I reverted this edit--the story is minor and its relevance to the point of the paragraph is questionable. RLetson (talk) 06:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress (book).jpg

Image:The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress (book).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Archive request

Can someone who knows how to do it (i tried to read the instrucitons and was still thoroughly confused) archive some of the older staler sections of this very long talk page? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 18:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Appropriate external link?

To prevent a linkfarm from growing, I have removed the following link to the talk page to gain concensus prior to adding to the article:

• SFcrowsnest - Science fiction portal with reviews, interviews and articles.

Is this link one of the top SF resources and therefore a valuable inclusion in the External Links? If so, does the value of this link indicate that any of the link(s) already listed is no longer needed and should be removed? Comments and opinions welcome!TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 17:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe this link is a valuable resource ... SFcrowsnest.com has 700,000 unique users per month, and is the second most popular science fiction web site on the internet after the US SCIFI Channel website scifi.com (also not listed). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shunt12 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Neither of those sites is needed. External links are a problem, not a value; this is not what Wikipedia is for. If anything, I'd say trim a few more, not put in another. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is Locus listed? They have very little original content online, with their site acting primarily as a feeding mechanism to convert online subscribers to their paid print magazine. This stands against the ethos of the internet, where content should be free and made fully available on the web? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shunt12 (talk • contribs) 09:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted to Orange Mike's version; I agree with him that the Gutenberg links aren't needed either. I'd be willing to cut all the remaining ones though a couple warrant discussion. I'd be fine with cutting out the Locus link; I also think we don't need the efanzines.com link. Mike Christie (talk) 09:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is the The Science Fiction Research Association listed? This is just a limited brochureware advert for the membership of the Science Fiction Research Association itself, with no meaningful content? Surely the SFWA would be a better link? Or the World Science Fiction convention body? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shunt12 (talk • contribs) 09:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is there a link to a single category of the Google DMOZ download at - List of science fiction and fantasy E-zines - surely a top level listing directly to DMOZ's SFF category would be more appropriate here? This is a very limited list ... and is of low quality, it incorrectly re-lists the advert site for The Science Fiction Research Association (which is not an e-zine).

The only useful links with real content here are the two Project Gutenburg URLS and efanzines.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shunt12 (talk • contribs) 10:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Dune?

Why doesn't the history section mention the Lord of the Rings of sci-fi? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.49.151 (talk) 06:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Ummm - Frank Herbert IS mentioned in the History section. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 08:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC) (ps it is general practice to add new threads to the bottom of the page (you can use the 'edit this page' button).

World View Tag & Encyl Britanica source

The Link i used for one of the citations is actually to the Enycl Britanica. http://www.britannica.com/oscar/print?articleId=66289&fullArticle=true&tocId=235716.

The entry contains lots of other useful information, and it has a better structure imo. There is a section on Russian SF, for anyone who wants to use it to remove the "World veiw" tag. (I couldn't find any discussion of this here - shouldn't the tagger have explained themself?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yobmod (talk • contribs) 15:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The content of the article is still very limited to US/European SF - I see nothing about the SF Japanimation phenomena with the giant space robots nor anything from other parts of Asia or Latin/South America or Africa (although I am not familiar with any tradition of SF from those areas so I don't know what specifically we might not be covering.)TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 17:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, agreed. But at least some European SF would make less US/UK centric. Just a start :-)Yobmod (talk) 07:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I would think that science fiction with its futuristic portrayal of a global perspective, the planet Earth and humans in space, would be one of the best articles to present a truly human viewpoint, instead of a regional one. I've just provided a translation of the Science Fiction in China subsection in the Chinese language SF article as a separate English wikipedia article. I think that Russian language SF has a comparable amount in quantity, quality and long historical extent to English language SF. Other languages likely have provided significant contribution to SF. If wikipedia is intended to be an encyclopedic source conveying planetary reality, then this still largely regional article can be enormously enhanced to present the genre from a world viewpoint. Gallador (talk) 12:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The original tagger contented him/her self with adding the tag, rather than adding more material. This article should be planetary in focus, of course; but the idea of SF as a distinct literary genre originated in the U.S. with Gernsback (himself a Luxembourger) , and is still to some extent centered in English-language publishing. Thus, the normal cultural bias of an Anglophone Wikipedia is added to by the nature of the genre. I do eagerly urge folks to add whatever they can find to improve the universality. (Anime is not the only Japanese SF, incidentally; they do actually read and write the stuff too.) --Orange Mike | Talk 14:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

also, all the "science fiction in xxx" articles are very low on citations, if they have references at all. They look to be written by editors trying to promote their countries culture rather than serious articles. Which uncited information should we incorperate here? the "FA"s in foreign languages have similar problems.Yobmod (talk) 15:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Orangemike and Yobmod. I think there is a magazine in English titled "Locus" and that this through the years has included articles about science fiction in various countries. Does anyone here have access to this, so this information can be drawn on to enhance this article, as well as the SF in xxx ones? Gallador (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Locus is a semiprozine concentrating on SF industry news, and therefore is not a very good reference source for the kind of historical background we need here. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I think Locus would be fine (semiprozine just means a low paying magazine) as a RS to start a "SF Worldwide section" - which would give somewhere to put the ugly see also links, and move the article towards GA. But until someone comes forth with the citations, we are stuck.Yobmod (talk) 08:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I know what a semiprozine is; did you vote on the proprosal at the WorldCon Business Meeting to create a separate class of semiprozine for fanzine Hugos? --Orange Mike | Talk 16:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't accusing you of ignorance, i was pointing out that the definition of semiprozine says nothing that would make them unreliable sources, assuming they are notable in themselves as locus is.Yobmod (talk) 11:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

A couple of sources that could be used are the Nicholls & Clute Encyclopedia of SF which has articles on sf in various countries, as well as a history article; and Mike Ashley's recent series of books on the history of the sf magazines: The Time Machines, Transformations, and Gateways to Forever, each of which have sections on other countries. I am working on magazine articles at the moment and won't get to this for a long time, if ever, but these sources would be good enough to make a decent start, if anyone wants to have a go. Mike Christie (talk) 12:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC).

I'll be ubnpacking my Clute at the end of this month, and going through as many SF articles as possible with it in hand, if no one get here first...Yobmod (talk) 12:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all of you. I hope some of you can use the mentioned sources to enhance the science fiction coverage of wikipedia. The comment about "Locus"'s SF industry nature may have validity in one perhaps being sceptical about claims to high quality. However, the situation begins with information about the existence of science fiction in other languages. If "Locus" or any other source is trying to market some science fiction books in other languages, then this at least is an indication such other than English books exist :) This question of existence of other than English science fiction is also addressed in the science fiction in Poland article with its photo of the store shelves containing new Polish science fiction by authors with surnames from P to Z published in the first half of 2006. In my opinion, anyone improving wikipedia readers' realization that science fiction has very rich existence in languages other than English is doing a great job. Thanks in advance. Gallador (talk) 03:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

My point about Locus is that its focus is SF news, not SF history; it's a very reliable source for current industry news and gossip, but not for SF history. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Orange Mike, you mention current news focus of "Locus." It is a good point if such is focus of each issue. And if "Locus" since its beginning provided current news about other than English science fiction, then since it was founded in 1968 (according to wikipedia article on Locus), the history of other than English science fiction for the last forty years may be enhanced by this publication.Gallador (talk) 06:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, of course; but it's not a good source for the history of the filed outside the Anglophone world, which is what we need most badly here. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

(<<outdent) I've just added a section "Science fiction in various countries" with subsections for some countries. For the German section, I translated the short section on science fiction in Germany from the German science fiction article; for the others I merely put links to existing articles here. For some countries, I marked the link as "see also" because it's about a science fiction association, rather than a general article about science fiction in that country. I might not be editing this article any further, but I don't suggest leaving it like that. One way to proceed would be to write summaries of the various "main articles" and put them in the sections I created. Another, perhaps better, way would be to delete the "Science fiction in various countries" section entirely but take information from it and sprinkle it throughout the entire article, giving it a more international flavour. There may be other ways to proceed, too. I didn't find any article specifically about science fiction in the United States, although there are articles about science fiction societies for specific regions of the U.S. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I think a seperate section is the best way, with international additions to other sections if the work has had international acclaim (which most (all?) of the US/UK works mentioned have had). But i think merging some of the subections would make it look nicer until they can be expanded Eg SF in Europe (with the applicable See alsos under), SF in asia (ditto). Subsections with one paragraph are discourages - one see also link looks even worse. I'll try it out, but someone revert if they disagree.Yobmod (talk) 07:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Also added more country links. Probably a good idea to leave a note on the talk page of each of the "SF in X" articles - the editors there would be the best for summarising their articles - as long as they remember that this article needs citations, even if theirs do not (!) :).Yobmod (talk) 08:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Yohmod: that looks much better than the way I had left it. The subsections can be recreated if/when enough summarized information is added to justify separate subsections. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Jrrt lotr cover design.jpg

The image Image:Jrrt lotr cover design.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm removing it - adds almost nothing to this article, and in no way illustrates how fantasy is related to SF, or that it is popular. Would almost certainly not pass FA with this as fair use.Yobmod (talk) 07:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is alternate history a subgenre of science fiction?

I'm wondering what the thinking is behind putting alternate history as a subgenre of science fiction in this article. I've always thought of it as it's own genre within speculative fiction, seperate from science fiction, fantasy and horror. Certainly some alternate history stories are crossovers with science fiction elements (most notably those that use the device of time travel to justify the existence of the alternate history) but most modern AH has no discernable science fiction elements. The genre has developed to a point where it doesn't need the crux of science fiction to allow readers to understand the concept, it merely portrays history as having happened in different ways. The only way I can see it making sense is if "science fiction" is defined rather pedantically as "fiction about or involving knowledge of science", with history being included as a social science. --86.135.176.173 (talk) 01:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, some alternate history is sci-fi-related, and can be considered a subgenre. At the same time, the Harry Turtledove books, to give a prominent recent example, are not science fictional in any way. It is not a clear-cut issue, in my opinion. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

We probably have to follow our sources; if they treat alternate history as a subgenre of sf, then so should we. The Nicholls/Clute Encyclopedia doesn't really do so, however -- it describes alternate history as having "long been popular with historians", and goes on to describe the introduction of alternate history to genre sf with Leinster's "Sideways in Time", in 1934. I think there's no question that sf has found alternate history to be a very fertile device, but if it didn't originate in the genre and has never been limited to sf it shouldn't be described as subsidiary to sf. Unless there are other reliable sources that disagree with this, I think the article text could reasonably be changed to reflect Nicholls/Clute's comments. Mike Christie (talk) 02:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Robert Weinberg in his introduction to the 1984 republication of Frances Stevens' SF Classic "The Heads of Cerberus" writes: "That The Heads of Cerberus is an important novel is without question. It was first published in 1919 and is the first story to use the concept of an alternate Earth paralleling our own but where history has taken an odd twist due to the different occurrence of one event." This is from pages 15 and 16 of "The Heads of Cerberus", Frances Stevens, Carroll & Graf Publishers, New York, 1984. It would appear to be such a requested reliable source modifying the above assertion. Gallador (talk) 05:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The earliest example given by Brian Stableford (the author of the article in the Nicholls/Clute) is Isaac d'Israeli's The Curiosities of Literature, 1791-1823. The article doesn't assert this is the earliest; in fact it implies it isn't since it says d'Israeli argues in favour of alternate history stories, which presumably means they predate his work. D'Israeli's book is on Google Books, apparently in its entirety, though I couldn't find any relevant passages in a quick look. So I think the Frances Stevens book doesn't contradict Stableford. Since the date is so early, we're not going to find anything remotely genre sf that predates it; instead I think we'd be looking for references that argued that alternate history stories have always been sf, and that these early examples were therefore sf by definition. I don't think this is a common position, but perhaps some critics argue that these stories are proto-sf. Anyway, some reflection of this sort of debate in the article could only help. Mike Christie (talk) 10:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest that debate is better off in the alternate history article than in the general SF article.Shsilver (talk) 11:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Part of it is due to the interaction of two 1960's definition of science fiction, "the story that logically follows from the consequences of x?" (x being in these cases "history happened differently"), and "mainstream fiction is science fiction that's restricted to stories about real history and the here and now". Part of it, too, is probably a critic's reaction "not normal, must be that SCI-FI without spaceships". htom (talk) 05:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Leinster's story is "Sidewise in Time," not "Sideways."Shsilver (talk) 09:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops. Yes, it is. Mike Christie (talk) 10:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, EoSF including it indicates some relationship to SF, and many famous AH stories are SF/non-realistic in addition to the AH part (The man in the High Caste, Bring the Jubilee) and even one that didn't was included in the SF Masterworks series (Pavane). But there is no problem with moving it into the related genres section imo.

Note: the AH article deals with issue with no problems: some AH is SF, some is fantasy, some is neither, so i don't think discusion there would help. It is its inclusion here that gets complicated.

Well, Turtledove certainly considers himself an SF writer (he and I were co-Guests of Honor at one SF convention), and has done some stuff that is even more clearly SF than most. Most AH is written by SF writers, and published by SF publishers; like all genre definitions, the publishers' attitudes affect things greatly (witness all the recent SF that's been published as if it were nothing of the sort, and gotten better respect because of it, from Atwood to Stephenson to Roth to McCarthy to Chabon). --Orange Mike | Talk 21:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Hard & soft

I've just posted a call for revision of the soft science fiction article (see the talk page), working on the assumption that solid sub-topic pages will make the work here go easier. I edited the hard science fiction article a while back and it seems stable (though I can see some room for improvement still), and have proposed revising "soft SF" make the two articles properly complementary. Then all we need do here is provide a thumbnail explanation of the pair of terms and point to the full articles, yes? RLetson 18:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Just posted a proposed new lead paragraph for the soft SF article on its talk page. Comments and improvements welcome. RLetson 06:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems passing strange that Robert A. Heinlein would be left out of the section on Hard SF!?--aajacksoniv (talk) 16:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Because he mostly wrote soft SF? Yobmod (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is what the WIKI main page about Heinlein has to say:

"Robert Anson Heinlein (July 7 1907 – May 8 1988) was an American novelist and science fiction writer. Often called "the dean of science fiction writers", he is one of the most popular, influential, and controversial authors of "hard science fiction".

Tho I would say that a fair amount of his work after 1960 was a mix of hard and soft SF , from his days in Astounding in the 1940's and espeically from 1950 to 1960 he was as good a writer of solid science based SF as well as one of SF's most talented story tellers. --aajacksoniv (talk) 10:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Even when his science is plausible, he focuses far more on his characters and sociology imo, eg in The Moon is a Hard Mistress, Starship Trooper. Others are completely non-scienctific. like Stranger in a Strange Land. Then there are the fantasies and science fantasies....

The wikipage should clearly not be featured, and i think should be taken to FAR. Note that calling him a Hard SF is only one of very many things therin that is not cited at all.Yobmod (talk) 11:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

That is not true of his early work, see Robert A. Heinlein bibliography, have you read any of his works written before 1960? Good Lord ask any expert on 'hard SF' and they would tell you Star Ship Troopers is 'hard SF' , same is true of Moon is a Harsh Mistress. Sure there are good characters and story too but the science in most all his work from 1939 to 1960 is solid. Equivalent to Asimov and Clarke.--aajacksoniv (talk) 16:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment about the WIKI page.--aajacksoniv (talk) 16:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I've read some of the earlier shorts, and Door into Summer, which has totally unexplained time-travel and some wierd social message about freezing yourself to have sex with children one has groomed once they become legal. It didn't stike me as particularly Hard SF compared to Hard SF classics like Mission of Gravity, which i'm suprised didn't have equation instead of chapter titles!

But if plaubible scince is the only criterion for being Hard SF, then so is Atwood's SF. And much of LeGuin and Octavia Butler. Luckily, our opinions mean nothing, only reliable sources :-). Anything you can find verifiable sources for the Heinlein page would be great.

See the Heinlein talk page, i'm not the only one to notice that there are huge chunks of original research and fan speculation - anything from that page that doesn't have a cite should be considered suspect.

Yobmod (talk) 19:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

But look both Clarke and Asimov are listed there, just to pick one piece of extrapolated super science both use FTL , Asimov in all his SF he uses FTL interstellar travel, Clarke the star gate in 2001 is another extrapolation, but these are as 'totally unexplained' as Heinlein's time travel. By the by both Faster than light and Time travel have a body of even 'hard science' within physics for some many years now.

Heinlein uses a clever take off on Einstein Rosen bridges Wormhole in Star Man Jones for interstellar travel... the space flight in Space Cadet, Between Planets, Farmer in the Sky, Red Planet, Rolling Stones, all contain perfectly ordinary known (now practiced) means of interplanetary flight. (In fact almost all his early SF short stories use ordinary known extrapolated interplanetary flight at the same level as von Braun was writing about it at the time.)

In fact Heinlein wrote a short story for Destination Moon (since he felt trying to base that movie on Rocket Ship Galileo seems a little goofy). Recall he was the 'hard science' space flight adviser on that George Pal film.

Double Star has a trip to Mars on a perfectly realizable nuclear powered space craft.

I don't know of anything in The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress which is not perfectly realizable extrapolated known technology.

The FTL drives in Star Ship Troopers don't differ from Asimov's 'jump' ships in any particular way.

Time for the Stars uses Slower than Light interstellar flight and known special relativistic physics.

One could pick and choose some soft SF even before 1960.

But the main problem is why is does the WIKI entry for Heinlein list him as a 'hard SF' writer and that does not qualify on the main page here? I frankly I consider that Asimov and Clarke also both wrote soft some SF , so should they be removed from the Hard SF section? --aajacksoniv (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not our analysis that counts, it's what the reliable sources say. I haven't looked in the Nicholls Encyclopedia, but I'm pretty sure that you won't find Heinlein or Asimov listed as exemplars of hard sf. If we can see that a reasonable amount of scholarly discussion refers to X as a hard sf writer, we can refer to them that way. Mike Christie (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The WIKI page on Heinlein is not a reliable source?

It is interesting that Clarke's , well it wasn't really a prediction, about geostationary satellites did not appear in the context of science fiction. It is really a scientific article.

Heinlein worked directing aeronautical engineering at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard ... he also had the equivalent of an engineering degree from the Naval Academy. If references are needed to qualify that part of his career as a Hard SF writer I will find them.--aajacksoniv (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

To quote David N. Samuelson "Modes of Extrapolation: The Formulas of Hard Science Fiction

As long as science fiction has had a coherent existence, writers and critics have debated its relevance to science. From Jules Verne and H.G. Wells, through Hugo Gernsback and John W. Campbell, Jr., to Gregory Benford and J.G. Ballard, SF's "hardness" has been both help and hindrance to popular and critical appreciation. In the last half-century, the label "hard SF" has been applied to tales in which scientific theories and technological applications get a significant share of attention. Both friends and foes of hard SF acknowledge that it bears some relationship to science, pure or applied, though they do not agree on the worth of that core. Neither camp claims scientific "hardness" as a guarantee of literary quality, and some detractors of hard SF derive the label from "hard to read," because it is badly written. Some essays from the 1983 Eaton Conference on SF and fantasy, collected in Hard Science Fiction, approach the controversy from a post-structuralist position, denying any claims of science to have a unique corner on truth. SF writers argued for scientific content and accuracy; literature professors discounted them, seeing "hardness" as mere rhetoric. Rhetorical features of science do help characterize hard SF, since it uses scientific findings and theories as measures of reality. Accurate but unobtrusive science may not define the subgenre, but neither does a rhetoric of hardness without scientific substance. In the best examples, the two interact positively, demanding reader sensitivity to both as indicators of quality. Writing and reading hard SF require a mind set that thrives on "hypotheticals," fantastic assumptions with theoretical justification in science, a seemingly paradoxical yoking of fantasies to the oxen of science and technology. If agreement fails on what constitutes hard SF, confusion reigns about who writes it. Some Eaton contributors emphasized Stanislaw Lem, C.S. Lewis, William Morris and the 17th century geologist, Thomas Burnet, none of whom qualify in my view. Hard SF has never existed in large quantities. Without some technical education, it is difficult to write, and most scientists do not write fiction. In SF's formative years, Verne, Wells, Gernsback and E.E. "Doc" Smith at least had technical training. During the "Golden Age," SF magazines published scientific puzzle stories and tales invoking the vast universe. Few writers, however, wrote hard SF before the '50s. The major body of evidence is less than 50 years old, and more people seem to be writing it now than ever before. Authors who write hard SF regularly include Poul Anderson, Greg Bear, Gregory Benford, Arthur C. Clarke, Hal Clement, Robert L. Forward, Larry Niven, Paul Preuss, Charles Sheffield, and Vernor Vinge. More occasional visitors include Brian W. Aldiss, Isaac Asimov, Ben Bova, David Brin, John Brunner, Michael Crichton, Gordon R. Dickson, Harry Harrison, Robert A. Heinlein, Frank Herbert, Fred Hoyle, Frederik Pohl, Jerry Pournelle, Carl Sagan, and George Zebrowski. Besides the classic and basically unclassifiable Olaf Stapledon, the essays following propose Stephen Baxter and John Cramer; other plausible newcomers include Roger McBride Allen, Michael Kube-McDowell, Michael McCollum, Allen Steele, and John Stith." [9] --aajacksoniv (talk) 13:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia's own articles are not reliable sources in the sense that that phrase is used here. Take a look at the relevant policy, which says "Articles and posts on Wikipedia, or other websites that mirror Wikipedia content, may not be used as sources".

Re Heinlein and Asimov, the source you quote mentions them as "occasional visitors". I doubt anyone would dispute that. Given that this article is a survey of the field, and not a detailed article on hard sf or Heinlein, that source wouldn't incline me to mention Heinlein as a hard sf writer. Even in the hard sf article it might be difficult to justify mentioning the occasional visitors, though that's more plausible. Mike Christie (talk) 13:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Heinlein is a hard sf writer by any reasonable measure. That he also wrote soft sf and fantasy is irrelevant -- so did Asimov and Clarke. Heinlein did the math! He worked out many of the engineering details of spaceflight long before the fact. To give just one example, he described how to build equal volume joints for spacesuits long before the reality. His "hard sf" credentials are especially on display in his books for teenagers. Many NASA scientists point to those books as the spark that inspired them to become scientists. In them, he described the planets and moons of our solar system as accurately as they were understood at the time, and explained relativity, computers, and rockets better than any fiction writer had done before. You need a reference. Here is one, from Clute and Nicholls' Encyclopedia of Science Fiction: "A strong narrative line, carefully worked-out technical detail, realistic characters and brisk dialogue are the leading virtues of this and most of his later juveniles, ..." Rick Norwood (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yet another identification of a Heinlein novel as hard SF:

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress[10]

The article Grading SF for Realism is really quite good , should be linked on the main article page.--aajacksoniv (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Norwood above one could select a number of Hard SF writings among Heinlein's works. I think Norwood's literature citation is adequate, I will look for others.--aajacksoniv (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that Heinlein as technical adviser on Destination Moon is a qualification. But then Clarke is not listed on the main page as being a technical adviser for 2001:A Space Odyssey, but then there were many on that film including Ordway, Lange and others ....--aajacksoniv (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the "occasional visitor" part of the long quote above. I would even say it is enough for Heinlein to be mentioned on the Hard SF page. But the overall SF page should only give very few examples, and that is easier done by selecting authors who only wrote hard SF. Likewise, identifying Heinlein simply as a "Hard SF writer" in the lead in his article ignores his many contributions to soft Sf and fantasy, hence i think the lead there would better say "SF writer" and leave the main body of text to explain the different subgenres he wrote in.

Trying to pigeonhole great writers with varied output is the bane of SF criticism and fandom, imo - anyone reading Moon is a Hard Mistress primarily for the technology instead of the social commentary / politics / characters / humour and technology is missing out on a lot, and i don't really see any benifit in defining it as Hard SF, Social SF & Military SF instead of simply (great?) science fiction. But maybe that's jsut me :-).Yobmod (talk) 08:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Including Heinlein as a Hard SF writer would in no way pigeonhole him, using that logic should exclude Asimov too! At least the main article does link to the Wiki entries on 'hard SF' and to Heinlein himself where he is identified as being in a large group of SF writers who have written in many different modes including hard SF. Some of them like Heinlein, Asimov and Clarke have academic degrees in engineering, chemistry and physics and other hard sciences. It is passing strange to not even mention one of SF's most famous practitioners of hard SF, early on he and Asimov were the authors who most realized Campbell's concept of melding a good story with scientific rigor.--aajacksoniv (talk) 11:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

And each of the 3 greats are mentioned multiple times. Heinlein 4 times, Asimov 5, Clarke 3, all also included in the "innovation" section about predicting real science. Sure, they are important to SF, but that should be enough to point readers to their articles. They get more references than the inventors of SF (Welles / Verne etc)! Every repeated use of one of them as an example excludes another writer, isn't 4 times enough for any single author in an article about the whole genre?

Yobmod (talk) 12:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Just seems Wiki ought to be self consistent even if can't be 'reliable'.(The response to my question that still puzzles me a little.)

Actually I turn to Wiki often now days as reliable source, yeah I know about the mischief lately..

and I think the espoused mechanisms can cure that.

Wells not mentioned as often! Me-thinks the whole main page needs expanding.--aajacksoniv (talk) 15:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Counterfactual history is not science fiction

'What if Britain had won the Revolutionary War?' is not science fiction in any way shape or form. It's counterfactual history. 68.49.36.18 (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually.... that's Alternate History. There is no such genre as Counterfactual, there is a genre called Alternate History however. The Rypcord. 06:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

And throughout publishing history, the vast majority of alternate history published, is still published as science fiction; and the only awards for alternate history are awarded by science fiction fans. I'm sorry if that offends you for some reason. --Orange Mike | Talk 08:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Contrafactual history and reasoning are terms from within history science. (It's not fiction, but the word may be borrowed if the English speaking community so decides). It's a controlled reasoning about alternatives that never occurred in real history. I'm not informed of how it is used in academic circles, and how often, but I would speculate that it may be useful for determining the logics of behavior of the people that acted in the historical situation that is studied by the historians. Said: Rursus ☻ 16:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Bear in mind that the very term "Counterfactual" was, I'm fairly sure, coined by the sometime SF writer and editor Kingsley Amis, for use as a synonym for "Science fiction" in his alternative history novel The Alteration! 87.81.230.195 (talk) 18:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Related genres&subgenres -or WHAT IS SCIENCE FICTION?

Ok, one thing. "science fiction" is much too broad to be considered a genre. Genre, in the literary sense of the word, refers to very specific formal similarities. A mere futuristic setting or technological context is not formally specific enough to classify SF as "genre fiction". Rather, science fiction should be referred to as a literary movement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.124.150 (talk) 04:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

"...and the categories and genres used by mass markets and literary criticism differ considerably." This reminded me of reading Kurt Vonnegut's "Wampeters, Foma & Granfalloons" in which he expresses annoyance at the sci-fi label and proposes "prophetic fiction," if I remember correctly. At any rate, I think it might be worthwhile to consider that, in literary criticism, a number of people, including "sci-fi" authors themselves, beleive that sci-fi is not a legitimate "critical" category/genre! That "Science fiction" and its subgenres only have use and value as marketing labels ONLY! It seems to me, contributers to this article, like a lot of science fiction fans, spend excessive amounts of time sorting out these labels. Just stop and consider an alternative- its all just fiction! Cuvtixo (talk) 00:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC) PS on the above "counterfictional history blahblahblah..." What's to stop a publisher from slapping a sci-fi label on it and selling it as such- answer: nothing.

Um, even if it's only a marketing label, what exactly gets the label? What might consumers reasonably expect to find inside when they buy a package so labelled? Are all genre labels (mystery, romance, thriller) similarly illegitimate? If "it's all just fiction," then why have critics spent all that time and effort devising definitions? In fact, the critical/scholarly consensus is that there is such a genre as science fiction and that it can be described. (Vonnegut's prickly relationship with the science fiction label was not exactly a matter of literary theory--more of wanting to move into a nicer neighborhood.) RLetson (talk) 06:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Depends on the theory of meaning we choose, at least two alternatives are around:

1. a term means what the general population choose it to mean, that is – if people use "SF"/"SciFi" to include "Fantasy" then "SF"/"SciFi" includes "Fantasy".
2. a term means what the term inventors (or cultural upbearers) choose it to mean, the same reasoning for the term inventors, or if they're not around anymore, any hint they gave about what they considered well within "SF" and what they didn't.

Since I'm a computer science educated guy, I choose the second one – using the marketing promises confuses terminology in absurdum – given enough dishonest marketeers, a word may change meaning entirely to cover anything irrelevant of no value. So "SF" as marketing boasts has no terminology meaning. If people start to use "SF" as the marketeers do, they speak rubbish and untrue. A lie is always a lie. But "SF" is an actual genre with specialized fandoms, convents etc., so it is "protected" by a developed and self-conscious culture that has a clear opinion of how to classify the stuff. Go to them and ask, I'm a lesser and sporadic fan of "SF". Said: Rursus ☻ 16:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Eh, regarding Kurt Vonnegut: he is a fascinating author, but not anything near the SF main line, since I regard the SF main line to be Asimov/Clarke/Star Trek (and many others): future, science and technology that is similar to current real sci/tech, simple straight story presenting one problem, often a very speculative and philosophical one, and at the end giving the grand explanation to make everything clear. Kurt Vonnegut's visions are vast storm of extremely speculative problems and explanations – of which some are completely impossible – producing a chaotic patchwork which isn't very probable, but very striking and touching. If Kurt Vonnegut disliked the term, that was because he had his very own very deviant style. Said: Rursus ☻ 16:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like you need to read more modern SF (post 1966 or so) and watch less television. Vonnegut is very much in the mainstream of written SF; certainly closer than certain other folks who never escaped the SF ghetto (at least in the U.S.) --Orange Mike | Talk 02:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, all points granted. I guess what I want to suggest is that the list of "related genres and sub-genres" does not belong where it is and is probably overlong, and discussions here about what is and isn't sci-fi are a little overwrought. While the term Science Fiction and sci-fi certainly used both colloquially, in marketing, and in academia, most of these others aren't" by the way, Vonnegut gave this opinion in the 60's. He might have changed his mind afterwards! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuvtixo (talk • contribs) 23:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that we are talking about two different things here: various genre conventions within sci-fi, and the subversions of same by certain sci-fi writers; and the assertion by the anonymous user who began this conversation that we should stop calling sci-fi a genre altogether and start calling it a literary movement, with, I am assuming, different genre "camps" within the movement. The problem with this assertion is that it is unreferenced, has apparently never been advanced in any notable sci-fi publication---this is, I admit, an assumption on my part, but I have never seen any such assertion in any notable publication---and would also seem to violate the definition of a literary movement. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 20:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

You know Brian Aldiss on the first page of The Trillion Year Spree stated that calling science fiction a 'genre' was wrong , it should be called a 'mode'. Aldiss then said he was not going go to war over that!--aajacksoniv (talk) 15:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Subgenres

Incidentally, does anyone else think that this page is overwhelmed by the subgenre descriptions? They each have there own page, and a SF subgenre page, so i think they should be shortened considerably to fit with summary style. I'm thinking that only examples/authors that are firmly tied into understanding the subgenre are really needed here (eg Gibson for Cyberpunk andStar wars for Space opera, but all the other films/TV series add nothing), with further examples restricted to the subgenresown pages the This page should discuss SF overall, not just highlight the sunbgenres.Yobmod (talk) 11:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

How much would we cut them down? They're already roughly only 2-3 sentences. Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

cyberpunk is 6 sentences, and ans already covered in it's own article. I find that subgenres are generally only of interest to hard-core fans, who love debatig which subgenre a work is, and making lists of examples. But as a general entry in a general encylopedia, the subgenres are really not that interesting - i don't think they need: a subheading each, an explantion of what they are, who are (a random assortment of) major authors, and what are (a random choice of) example works from each type of media. If someone wants to know that much about cyberpunk, they should click on the link.

I know people don't like to change long standing articles, but this has been stuck as B class for ever, and no improvment can take place without changes.Yobmod (talk) 07:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok; well if you want to shorten them, it is fine with me, I just wasn't sure how to go out about it. They already seemed terse, but I had only given them a cursory glance. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I just removed some of the longer lists of example authors, which seemed randomly selected (eg, the authors "who write both SF and fantasy". If people read more short story collections, they would find that this includes 90% of SF authors, including the all of the big 3. So a list of lesser known authors adds nothing.

Buffy /LoTR

Television shows like Buffy the Vampire Slayer and films like The Lord of the Rings created new interest in all the speculative genres in films, television, computer games, and books.

I moved the above from the page, to see if it was verifiable. Buffy is a ground-breaking and influential cult programm, but i wouldn't say it "created new interest in all the speculative genres". Similarly, LotR (film) gave massive boost to fantasy films and maybe books, but what is the proof it had particular influence on science fiction? With limited space, discusion should stick to film and TV that is really SF, and has sources discussing their influence.Yobmod (talk) 12:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

BtVS might be credited (eventually) with part of the growth of "vampire fiction" or "supernatural villain fiction", but I don't see the series as having much of an effect on science fiction as a whole. Anne Rice probably should get as much credit for the vampire stuff, and the X-files for the supernatural. I must say, though, that having read your comment above, and then picking up Mike Shepherd's new Kris Longknife story, I did think "here, Buffy is a Space Marine, and a princess!" "Strong women" characters are going to be more frequent throughout fiction, I think, so maybe she is having an effect. htom (talk) 17:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't be absurd. Strong female characters have been increasingly present in SF since the rise of second wave feminism, decades before the show first aired. The first Worldcon "women's panel" was in 1976; things like WisCon, A Women's APA and Broad Universe have less than nothing to do with Buffy. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Not being absurd. There were strong women characters in science fiction (and in science fantasy and in fantasy and in sword&sorcery and ...) long before Buffy showed up, and long before 1976. Buffy, however, got people to talking about those strong women characters, which existed but were "popularly" unnoticed. Podkayne of Mars, The Left Hand of Darkness, modesty Blaise ... the list of the ignored is long Honey West(not science fiction). htom (talk) 02:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I error in claiming that Kris Longknife is a Space Marine; she's in the Navy! htom (talk) 02:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Ja, not saying is not groundbreaking in her niche, i even have sources for that. But also have sources for Xena being groundbreaking, and i don't think either has had a specific impact on SF, as opposed to on fantasy or kids TV (which certainly were behind in gender equality compared to SF). They will be mentioned in Gender in SF, which is what i'm currently working on.Yobmod (talk) 09:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

It is my experience that people who don't read SF have a bizarrely exaggerated idea of how much visual-media stuff influences the genre itself (by "the genre" I mean actual written SF), perhaps because the non-written stuff looms so large in their mindspace. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Alien space bats?

The editor who inserted this term into the Alternate History section (and who created the ASB WP page) as a common one for "Alternate histories that have been created by implausible means" is perhaps pushing the point. It strikes me as 1) peculiar to UK discussions, and primarily fannish ones at that and 2) not noteworthy enough for inclusion in a general article on SF and its major subdivisions. It is certainly not part of the general SF critical vocabulary outside newsgroups and similar informal settings, pace its appearance in the occasional review. Amateur and fan language does work its way into the standard critical-descriptive vocabulary ("space opera," for example), but I would argue that ASB hasn't gotten there yet. RLetson (talk) 05:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I would argue differently as I have seen that writers and readers use the term a lot, which is why I created the article and added it here. However what do you mean by "peculiar to UK discussions"? Do you mean UK the country because it is used in the US a lot. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 16:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned the UK because the non-Usenet/discussion-group examples I found were mostly UK sites--apparently result of not enough searching. But to other matters: One of the questions I ask about an unfamiliar term is who uses it. From the references in the ASB article, it appears to be a fannish term that is edging into reviews. It might be appropriate to mention it in a discussion of the alternate history subgenre (particularly one deals with readership and reader responses), but in a general-SF piece it seems neither significant nor widespread enough to warrant a mention. It's a bit like including in the fandom section of this article mentions of BNF, gafiating, or poctsards. (I'm showing my age here.) RLetson (talk) 06:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Seema to be used enough to have it's own article (at least as much as all the crappy stubs for other fan terms), and mention in the AH article. Buti agree that for a general article on SF, it is too much detail. We don't define terms like this for the other genres, that is the purpose of the inline links. But at least someone added something about a SF genre instead of an example from a single episode of a TV series :-).Yobmod (talk) 09:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

You guys make reasoned arguments even if I do think its more widespread, though to prove that I would have to start posting a long list of non-notable blogs, reviews, and discussion boards. You are probably right though that in the end it goes better with the alternate history article than the sci-fi page. I have removed it. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 17:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Quite a reasonable arrangement--one of the things WP is good for is documenting emergent or niche terminology and pop-culture materials (though with a history that goes back a decade, ASB apparently isn't all that new), but it's best to let items find an appropriate level or spot in the Wiki environment. Without ZHS's ASB entry, I would not have been aware of the notion (outside Ken MacLeod's rather different use of the term), and I'm glad that an explanation and historical account is available. RLetson (talk) 21:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Claim in 'Definitions' section now disproved

Re: "Forrest J. Ackerman publicly used the term "sci-fi" at UCLA in 1954,[13] though Robert A. Heinlein had used it in private correspondence six years earlier.[14]"

Heinlein's supposed use of "sci-fi" has recently (December-January 2008-9) been shown - in Mike Glyer's fanzine File 770 - to be a misprint in a published version of the correspondence in question: see http://file770.com/?p=710 where the claim is discussed and the truth unearthed by commenters.

Briefly, this use of "sci fi" appeared in Grumbles from the Grave, a posthumous collection of some of Heinlein's correspondence, in a letter "October 1, 1949: Robert A. Heinlein to Lurton Blassingame" found on p110 of a mass-market paperback edition [p114 of the UK pbk I myself own], as documented by File 770 commenter Eric Schultheis.

However, commenter Christopher Kovacs has obtained a pdf of the original letter, and found that Heinlein had actually typed "sci-fic" (a contraction then widespread in professional and fan SF circles). Kovacs and others provide relevant links to the material involved.

File 770 is well known in SF circles and this discussion has been linked to by Dave Langford's Ansible, an SF Journal of Record, but I feel unable to suggest what would be considered Wikipedia-appropriate references, since research and publication is virtually ongoing - Langford himself has informed the OED of the matter. I'm also unsure whether in the context of this article, the mistaken attribution and real story warrants mention, or whether the Heinlein "ghost-usage" should simply be ignored. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 17:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I cut it. I've downloaded the image of the relevant page, and it is certainly "sci-fic"; there's no need for the article to mention the usage just to dismiss it. Anyone can download that page for $2, so it's verifiable. Mike Christie (talk) 18:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Mike. Hopefully this discussion record will suffice to head off well-meaning re-discoverers of the misprint. Terry Hunt aka87.81.230.195 (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hard SF, Clarke, Lunar Dust

The deep lunar dust theory was due to astrophysicist Thomas Gold long before Clarke wrote A Fall of Moondust (1961), Clarke did not make that prediction. --aajacksoniv (talk) 11:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Archive pass

I've archived a bunch of stuff since the page was getting long; I tried to leave anything with a note on it less than three or four months old. If I accidentally archived anything that shouldn't have been moved, please just bring it back. I also took out the dated talk page archive headers as the {{talkheader}} template already has archive links automatically. Mike Christie (talk) 03:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hard SF: Author-scientist roll call

Several authors listed as having "distinguished themselves as working scientists" have not actually done so, as far as I can tell. I noticed this issue when I saw Neal Asher's name at the beginning of the list, and to my knowledge he has never been a "working scientist." Nor has Adam Roberts, for that matter, and I'm doubtful of Peter F. Hamilton's inclusion in the list.

The citation given at the end of the list certainly doesn't reference these three authors, and a bit of googling hasn't turned up any evidence for their inclusion in this list. It would seem that Asher, Roberts, and Hamilton should be removed from the list, but I figured I'd post something here for discussion first as I'm not experienced in the dos and don'ts of editing here.

Some hard SF authors have distinguished themselves as working scientists, including Neal Asher, Adam Roberts, Peter F. Hamilton, Alastair Reynolds, Robert Forward, Gregory Benford, Charles Sheffield, Isaac Asimov, and Geoffrey A. Landis,[48]

Scott McG (talk) 23:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The list is almost entirely pointless, and exists only because some editors want there favourite authors listed. The point of the paragraph is informative, but how does a list of not-so-famous authors who happen to have degrees in a science help the understanding of SF overall? A few examples should be included at most (2 or 3). So we should just decide which are most famous for being working scientists, preferably those whose science reseach has been noted for influencing their works specifically (Eg a famous computer scientist who writes about SF computing, like V. Vinge). If people disagree, then a subarticle can be made: "Scientists writers of science fiction". YobMod 08:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a useful point to be made about writers who have also been "working scientists," but the list as it stands is, as already indicated, full of errors, and one source cited (the Sigma website) is contaminated with what looks like resume padding. (Larry Niven's doctorate, for example, is honorary--and a D.Litt at that.) The Astronomy Education Review page looks more reliable, though even that list is of "Science Fiction Authors With Science Degrees" rather than "working scientists." The last six names here are all of people who have worked as scientists (though Asimov was primarily a classroom teacher). This stuff is not that hard to research and confirm, but I'd think a half-dozen representative writers would do--otherwise we get list-bloat. And there will be the wrangles about who deserves to be a representative, which is silly but inevitable. A somewhat broader point might be to indicate the range of science/math/computer-related backgrounds to be found among SF writers--teachers, engineers, science journalists--though the sociology of the field might be beyond the scope of an encyclopedia article. RLetson (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

"Scientifiction"

The alternate term "scientifiction" should be mentioned in this article. Badagnani (talk) 03:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"Scientifiction" is of interest as one of the early names for the genre, but it has not been in common use for some decades. It might rate a passing mention (say, in para. 4 of the History section), but not anything more. RLetson (talk) 19:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Good science

Whatever the definition may be, I think what's most important is that a clear delineation between what is scientifically possible and what is pure fantasy needs to be made. The historic "Scientist Authors" used the medium of their literature to inspire a greater appreciation for science by grounding their work in what (at the time) was realistically and scientifically possible. How the literature impacts the public should be the first priority. Does it inform, or confuse ? Too many people without substantive education in science read or watch what is clearly "science fantasy" and believe it to be scientifically possible. The converse is also true, and both of these dynamics are counter-productive to human development. There needs to be a way to define what literature is "good science" and what is the equivalent of a mexican soap-opera. If the edges are a little fuzzy, so what ? Better to get most literature on one side of the line or the other, and live with the inaccuracies, rather than mish-mash the terms "science fiction" and "science fantasy" such that both are meaningless, and constructive literature appears to the uneducated exactly the same literature focused on Dungeons & Dragons "magic". (I don't know how to sign my post, sorry.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.148.74.228 (talk) 03:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for adding external link: Sci-Fi-Online

An IP editor recently added the following link. To prevent the page from again becoming a linkfarm, I have brought the link here for the community to discuss whether it meets our WP:EL guidelines, and if so if it should replace one of the current links. -- The Red Pen of Doom 10:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• • Sci-fi-online - dedicated to modern sci-fi shows and movies

discussion

• No - adds nothing to our understanding of the subject matter; just another dose of recentism, especially since this is not the article about science fiction films or science fiction television. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

possible unreliable source used on this page

http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/aclarke.htm

The above website appears to not meet the requirements of being a reliable source since it is self published. There is a discussion [here]. There is also a discussion at the [plagiarism talk page] about how to handle this issue.-Crunchy Numbers (talk) 03:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

It is indeed an amateur site and lacking standard documentation beyond a "further reading" list that presumably includes its sources. I wouldn't accept it as a source in a term paper aimed at getting the writer as close as possible to most reliable sources.

And speaking on a related matter, I question the appropriateness of the "How Science Fiction Found Religion" piece in the External Links list. It's an op-ed essay on the website of the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank. It also focuses almost entirely on films, and recent ones at that. It's not exactly disinterested scholarship--nor, for that matter, very interesting. RLetson (talk) 19:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

In the intro

Science fiction is largely based on writing entertainingly and rationally about alternate possibilities[2] in settings that are contrary to known reality. Either the footnote belongs at the end of the sentence or the last clause needs to be justified. I doubt you can find any professional s-f writer who used that criteria as a working definition of the genre. Nitpyck (talk) 22:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that it's a fair summary of the situations unfolded in the next paragraph of the lede, which unfolds the main sorts of "setting that are contrary to known reality" which SF encompasses. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

But it implies most strongly that stories set in: an historical past that does not contradict known facts of history or the archeological record or on other worlds, could not be science fiction. And this is not correct; Tim Powers is an example of science fiction set in real world matching real history and archeological record. Stories from the 40's and 50's based on other planets, matching all know facts about those planets, are common. As written this is too limiting. Again if there is a reliable source that places those limits ok but I'd expect it to be written that way: Leo X says science fiction is always set outside and beyond the real world as we know it. And later in that paragraph- is there not a lot of Hard s-f that deals with extrapolation from science and technology as it currently exists? You know maybe changing the word largely to a less inclusive modifier would fix the problem? Nitpyck (talk) 05:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Defining sf is tricky, certainly, but this is cited to del Rey, and the list of examples in the article does explicitly include alternate history, so I think it's OK. Mike Christie (talk) 09:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Then move the footnote to the end of the sentence. But I believe the cite is to the statement writing rationally about alternate possibilities and not about the rest of that statement. Note that the most commercially successful writer for the last 30 years of the 20th century according to Disch's The Dreams Our Stuff Is Made Of put his stories in a "plausible present". Maybe change it fromScience fiction is largely based... to Less successful science fiction is largely based...Nitpyck (talk) 01:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Sci Fi

I'm not against having a re-direct, but some-where there shouldbe a discussion of the term "sci fi," since it is used by some forscince fiction and by others as a particular kind of science fiction. Kdammers (talk) 23:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry: I used a search on this term and came up blank, but I didn't check for the hyphenated version, which is present and fully covers my concerns.Kdammers (talk) 23:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Slan miscategorised?

In the Superhuman section it says: "result of intentional augmentation such as in A.E. Van Vogt's novel Slan".

It's many years since I read this, but although the Slan are generally believed to be the result of modification by Samuel Lann, don't they eventually turn out to be the result of natural mutation?

Sorry if I'm misremembering. Paul Magnussen (talk) 23:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Head paragraph

It currently looks stupid to have a fairly bald definition with bold claims in the lead paragraph of the article, immediately followed by the "definitions" section where it's claimed that the genre is hard to define. The genre IS hard to define and the paragraph should reflect that, leading into the definitions section, rather than taking some kind of stand. "Differs from fantasy" is such a stand, for instance--it presumes the narrow definition of "Fantasy." In the broad sense of the word, science fiction is a SUBSET of fantasy, as are all escapist fictions. This leads into the argument over what constitutes memetic fiction generally, and ... CAN OF WORMS. It would be best to simply establish the genre as extremely nebulous right from the word go, rather than allow catering to any particular viewpoint.75.64.204.99 (talk) 15:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "escapist fictions"; certainly I would argue that so-called "mimetic" fiction is every bit as much fantasy as anything Tolkien ever wrote. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Broken link in footnote 32

correct link should be http://www.nvcc.edu/home/ataormina/beyond/ Tjfloyddc 17:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjfloyddc (talk • contribs)

I see it. I think the right link is now actually Science Fiction Chronology but I'm not 100% clear. It seems the author has re-arranged her site greatly to exclude specific SF "History" and include "Chronology" instead. Hopefully, we can check on it some more to make sure that the cite gets updated properly. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 19:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

"Religious/Spritiual" "science" fiction

Oxymoron is the word that springs to mind on this. Further the entry on it seems more to be a justification than an explanation or a definition on just what it's supposed to be. I recommend removing it altogether unless someone can 1) define it in a sense that is not contradictory to the core of science fiction (i.e. fiction that in some way has science at the center of the story -- stories which abuse science to further a religious cause does not have science at it's core) 2) provide good examples of either authors or works that fall into the genre and 3) explain why this is not an entirely separate genre (which it sound to me like it is) FrederikHertzum (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

There are folks writing it, who feel that they are merely working in a specific sub-genre. Per NPOV, we put it in "SF" unless you can find some reliable sources claiming that none of it qualifies as SF (in which case, I'd say make that part of the subsection on the subgenre). --Orange Mike | Talk 21:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC) (yes, I am both devoutly religious and an SF fan)

Who is writing it? What are they writing? and how is it SF? I am not the one making claims. Whom ever wrote "about" the subgenre is -- let the person who wrote that, provide evidence that it is a sub-genre of SF. I cannot prove that something does not exist (and especially not when I don't know what it's supposed to be) -- it won't do any good claiming I have the burden of proof. FrederikHertzum (talk) 00:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Having looked further into when the entry was added and by whom, I found that it was added 2009-09-24 06:46 by an anonymous user, and still note that there is no actual explanation about what the sub-genre is supposed to be. FrederikHertzum (talk) 01:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

If no-one gives any real objections to removing the sub-genre before monday 2010-03-15, I will remove it from the article. Explanations to what the sub-genre is supposed to be will also prevent me from removing it. FrederikHertzum (talk) 12:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Opening Image

I think this article would benefit from a nice opening image, but since the subject matter is more intangible there are a lot of possibilities, so I figure some discussion of it would be prudent. I also think it's preferrable to get a good picture, and hopefully one that's in the public domain or has lax copyright issues. Some ideas: Isaac Asimov, or any other seminal sci-fi author (H.G. Wells, etc.); something from Star Wars or anything pop cultural-y (Star Trek, etc.); a provocative image representing technology or space or the future... There are so many options. Because of that perhaps it might be difficult to agree on one, but I think the article would benefit if we can. -- The Fwanksta (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I think there is an anachronism about Jules Verne in the history paragraph

As I am french, I know Jules Verne did not belong to the 17th century but to the 19th. I suppose the author wanted to place the sentence "and Jules Verne's Voyage de la Terre à la Lune and Des états de la Lune et du Soleil in the 17th century" after since this sentence also lacks a verb and a capital letter At the beginning. Please could somebody correct this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.128.44.178 (talk • contribs)

Done. It's no problem, but Wikipedia wants its potential editors to be bold, feel free to do it yourself next time -- everyone is always encouraged to help. -- The Fwanksta (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

History: earliest works

Some book sources (links to sections with relevant quotes) for the "citation needed" tag in the History section:

• Imagination und Invention By Toni Bernhart, Philipp Mehne
• Science fiction: a historical anthology By Eric S. Rabkin

Hope this helps. -Miskaton (talk) 16:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, regarding Vinge and the singularity:

• The Year's Best Science Fiction: Twenty-First Annual Collection By Gardner Dozois
• Popular Science Aug 2004 Seven years before defining the Singularity in a scientific paper, Vinge explores the fate of...
• The clock of the long now: time and responsibility, Volume 1999, Part 2 By Stewart Brand

Again, hope that helps. -Miskaton (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

History: earliest works

Some book sources (links to sections with relevant quotes) for the "citation needed" tag in the History section:

• Imagination und Invention By Toni Bernhart, Philipp Mehne
• Science fiction: a historical anthology By Eric S. Rabkin

Hope this helps. -Miskaton (talk) 16:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, regarding Vinge and the singularity:

• The Year's Best Science Fiction: Twenty-First Annual Collection By Gardner Dozois
• Popular Science Aug 2004 Seven years before defining the Singularity in a scientific paper, Vinge explores the fate of...
• The clock of the long now: time and responsibility, Volume 1999, Part 2 By Stewart Brand

Again, hope that helps. -Miskaton (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Soft and social SF citations

We might consider including some thoughts from A companion to science fiction By David Seed in this section, not just to resolve the citation needed tag, but also because I think it's a perspective that's not adequately aired here. -Miskaton (talk) 16:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Mystery fiction citation

If anyone's feeling really ambitious about transcribing citation info, there's a great biblo. entry in American studies: an annotated bibliography, Volume 2 By Jack Salzman that I found for the Mystery fiction section. -Miskaton (talk) 16:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

"usually set in the future"

I believe this phrase should be removed from the lead sentence as a great deal of science fiction is set in the present or even the past.--May Cause Dizziness (talk) 23:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The term 'usually' doesn't preclude that SF is sometimes set in the near present or past. However, the majority is set in the future. Is that a contentious statement? In any case, that's what the reliable sources state, so it should be included. LK (talk) 02:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I share the same concerns with the OP and I would like to see the sources in question. Viriditas (talk) 02:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Click the links in the references following the first sentence of the article. LK (talk) 03:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question and that's not how we use references. Per verification, you should be able to just give me a source, quote, and link right here. The use of multiple refs in the lead supporting that statement is a huge red flag. The OP is clearly on to something. Viriditas (talk) 03:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Kindly point out in which policy or guideline it says that providing several reliable sources to back up a disputed statement is "a huge red flag". Since you apparently can't read though the references on the main page, here the ones that include the word 'future' in their description of SF:

[11], [12], [13] Most of the other references also imply that SF is set in the future by using terms such as 'discoveries', 'developments', 'advanced technology', 'space travel'.

I'm not emotionally attached to the term 'future', as far as I'm concerned, it's a purely descriptive term, since if you browse through the SF section of any bookshop, library or video shop, you'll find that most SF is set in the future. It completely escapes me why anyone would want to deny this. However, I would oppose the removal of a sourced description, merely on the basis of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. LK (talk) 08:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

More than anything else, common sense is required to edit Wikipedia. The careful use of sources, the understanding of how to write lead sections (citations aren't needed in the lead, please see WP:LEAD), the need to verify sources and passages from those sources on the talk page without having to scroll through text (this is the burden of the editor making the claims, please review WP:V), are all part of the process. Wikipedia:When_to_cite is also helpful here. Wikipedia:Citation overkill has more to say on this subject as well; Telling signs are when an "editor desperately shores up his point with extra citations, in the hope that his opponents will accept there are reliable sources for his edit." This appears to be the case here. The dictionary, Encarta, and writing-world.com, are not what I would consider good sources for the purposes of this article. And making the claim that science fiction is "usually set in the future" in the very first sentence is a gross (and false) simplification of a complex and multifaceted genre. I'm getting the strong sense that you haven't really looked into this subject very closely, because an historical overview of the use of the term to define the genre shows that your definition isn't true. Viriditas (talk) 08:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that I lack 'common sense'? I would suggest to you that if you want to remove something that is i) well sourced, and ii) blindingly obvious, you should start a RfC on the issue and see if anyone else agrees with you on this issue. As for not incorporating references in the lead, I'm happy to move it to the body, as long as you don't then use this as an excuse to remove the statement. Also, congratulations on your arcane reasoning about how sources should be used on Wikipedia to show that plentiful reliable sources that back up a statement somehow makes it suspect. LK (talk) 08:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I am suggesting that common sense requires one to think about the problem at hand, and to work on solving it. Two editors have told you that there is a problem. Your response so far has not addressed it, but instead, you made a silly request for policies and guidelines that say the use of multiple sources in the lead section is a bad thing. You aren't thinking this through. Tell you what, there's a lot of scholarly books and journal articles on this subject. Taking just 10 seconds to search on Google books, I was able to disprove your poorly sourced assertion. Come back here when you've done the necessary research. There is nothing "well sourced" about your statement. Repeating poorly sourced stereotypes is not a good thing. All one has to do is look at the history of the genre, and how the term came to be used in the first place to see that this assertion doesn't belong in the first sentence of the lead. Viriditas (talk) 08:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any reasoned suggestions on how the text should be changed, I'm all ears. BTW, I'm sure that WP:RS/N will agree with me that the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the Cambridge Dictionary, and MS Encarta are perfectly reliable sources for this statement. LK (talk) 09:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Tertiary sources are not the best reliable sources for this article, and you still aren't "getting it". If you can't be bothered to do your homework, then I suggest you shouldn't be editing this article. Viriditas (talk) 09:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Let me tell you what I 'get'. There is a common definition from multiple dictionaries and encyclopedias of what SF is. But for some SF aficionados it somehow 'degrades' SF that a definition can be given, so they cling to this precious affectation that 'oh, SF is so different, so special, you just can't name it'. As far as I'm concerned, that's just an 'in-universe' belief. Let's just stick to Wikipedia policies and practices. See WP:MOSBEGIN where it says, "The first paragraph of the introductory text needs to unambiguously define the topic" and "The article should begin with a declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?""

In many articles, If contentious, such sentences are often referenced to dictionary definitions; if dictionary definitions are good enough for other articles, they're good enough for SF. Reliable tertiary sources are perfectly appropriate for such uses, as tertiary sources are themselves trying to do exactly the same thing, i.e. come up with a reasonable definition for a term. If you object, let's take it to WP:RS/N and ask if dictionary definitions are appropriate sources to use to source the definition of a term, or alternatively, kindly point out some reliable secondary sources to use. Perusing the list of sources, I don't notice any peer-reviewed academic articles on the list. LK (talk) 09:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

We don't write lead sections based on dictionaries and tertiary sources. We write them based on summaries of the most significant aspects of our topic as covered in the article, sourced to the best secondary sources we can find. There seems to be a basic lack of understanding as to what is required here, but most troubling is your refusal to even consult the most definitive sources on the subject. Viriditas (talk) 09:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas, can you provide a pointer/link for one or more of the sources which disprove that SF is usually placed in the future? CRETOG8(t/c) 14:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

A couple of comments. First, it might be useful to look at Definitions of science fiction, which lists many different definitions. Heinlein's mentions the future, but many don't, though there are often other words which could be treated as proxies for "future", such as "predict". Second, here are some quotes from the Stableford/Clute/Nicholls article on "Definitions of SF", from the 1992 edition of the Nicholls/Clute Encyclopedia -- about as definitive a source for this debate as exists. "Oddly enough, the most obvious element in the magazine sf that is the initial focus of nearly all of these earlier definitions is not much mentioned in them: the overwhelming majority of the sf of this period -- especially in the USA -- was set in the future ... writers like E.E. "Doc" Smith ... freed the future for "itself", and effect of this new freedom was, in literary terms, explosive. From this the characteristic (and addictive) flavour of US sf derives: its relaxed embracing of scale and technology, its narrative fluency, and, perhaps, its secret impatience with reason." The article goes on to talk about later definitions, but the passing comment that the "overwhelming majority" of sf was set in the future, plus the implication that it is remarkable this was not mentioned, seems enough to me to justify a mention in the lead. It is still the case that much sf -- I'd guess the majority, but I don't know -- is set in the future. I'd say "usually" is a reasonable word to use, though I'd also be OK with "often". In either case the Nicholls could be used to cite this if necessary, though I don't think a citation is necessary in the lead -- it should be in the body. Mike Christie (talk) 14:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Mike raises some good points. LK, you have to realize that you are tinkering with what is probably the most heavily-discussed topic in the history of the science fiction genre, haggled over for decades by a series of knowledgeable, articulate and intelligent professionals and gifted aficionados: one which has its own article for very good reasons. To overturn nuanced phrasing based on reasoning drawn from amateur definitions in tertiary sources like Encarta and free onine dictionaries shows an appalling ignorance of the field. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Orange Mike, did you meant to address LK in your comment? I think LK is the one supporting the mention of the future, though I agree the sources LK cites are not specialized. Mike Christie (talk) 16:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did; that's why I began the second sentence with, "LK,...". --Orange Mike | Talk 18:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Serious research will show that the notion that there is a brief, simple, accurate description of "Science Fiction" in one sentence is rarely possible. Quick and wrong, there are many of those. "Fiction of other times and places that does not unreasonably violate the currently known laws of science" is the smallest I know, and can't provide a citation for (John Campbell?) htom (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The insertion of the future-setting parameter, accompanied by a fistful of dictionary definitions, set off alarms for me as well. "Usually" might be a statistically-justifiable modifier (though at what threshold? 51%? 66%?), but as the comments above suggests, including "usually set in the future" in a single-sentence definition exaggerates the significance of that element. And dictionary definitions fail to reflect the nuances, taxonomic rigor, and historical background that literary studies supply. (In fact, a general-purpose dictionary reflects not taxonomy but usage.) A brief definition needs to identify the essential elements, and future setting is not one of them, any more than, say space travel is. RLetson (talk) 19:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

There has been much talk about the inappropriateness of using non-specialized sources. However, they are currently the best sources offered in the article lead. If someone can bring in highly respected reliable specialized sources (e.g. peer reviewed academic work), I'ld be more than happy to see it used to craft a definition in lead. In the meantime the manual of style requires that a reasonably accurate description of science fiction be given in the first sentence (or at least the first paragraph). A statement such as 'science fiction is a type of fiction', or 'science fiction is fiction that is not easily defined' is not acceptable when IMO reasonable, good definitions are offered by reliable sources. I would also note that WP:PSTS does not restrict the use of tertiary sources, and in fact notes that they are useful for "providing broad summaries of topics".

If the only point of contention is the blurb about 'usually set in the future', feel free to remove it if it will settle this argument. That's fine with me. What I would find objectionable is a reversion to a lead sentence that says 'science fiction is a type of fiction'. However, there is no problem with something in the lead about how science fiction is hard to definitively describe, and the history of the discussion over this issue. In fact, the MOS requires that such a summary be offered in the lead since the discussion of this issue forms quite a large part of the article. --LK (talk) 23:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I've removed 'usually set in the future' from the lead, as it is contentious, and currently under discussion. LK (talk) 23:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

OK by me. Science fiction set in the past is often called "alternative history". Someone else, who I also can't remember, said something like "stories of people in worlds or cultures that are a little different than ours, and what that means to those people." (People in the nominal sense, not always humankind.)—Preceding unsigned comment added by OtterSmith (talk • contribs)

Science fiction is a genre of fiction dealing with the impact of imagined innovations in science or technology.

I doubt this is even close to accurate. Is Star Wars a science fiction story/film? It does not deal with the impact of imagined innovations in science or technology, and it takes place in the past. I could go on. Viriditas (talk) 06:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Aside from the question of whether Star Wars is science fiction (I feel that Lucas is too obviously scientifically illiterate for the series to aspire to anything more than SF-like fantasy status), perhaps we might offer a genre of fiction shaped by imagined differences in science or technology, either in the future or in an imaginary past. But as the article itself makes clear, you'll never get a single definition that satisfies everyone; and those offered by people ignorant of the field (I don't mean you, Virid) are the least useful. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)