Talk:Science fiction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
 This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page. Please feel free to add your name the project participation list and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Article This article is a Article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Science fiction article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Science fiction as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Japanese or Latvian language Wikipedias.
Science fiction was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake.

Date of review: 17 April 2006
To-do list for Science fiction: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
  • Reduce usage of "SF" thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Find some citations for "Science fiction often involves one or more of the following elements"
  • Consider changing Science_fiction#Literature into prose.
  • Examine FA SF articles in other languages for ideas
  • Peer review
  • Add in suggestions
  • Copyedit, look at WP:MOS to double-check.
  • Check against the current Good Article Criteria. May need to fix up fair use rationales.
  • GA!
Archive
Archives
  1. October 2001 - March 2006
  2. April 2006 - May 6, 2006
  3. May 6, 2006 - Sept 18, 2006
  4. Sept 18, 2006 - Dec 27, 2006
  5. Dec 27, 2006 - Jan 22, 2007
  6. Talk: Jan 22 - current

Contents


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] (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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/c/i/Talk%7EScience_fiction_54e3.html"