Talk:Space warfare in fiction
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 30 January 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Contents |
[edit] Merge with older versions
I made a copy of the older versions of this page (found here) that, although not completely sourced as of yet, contains information on Space Warfare in fiction not (yet) covered here. Any help with the merge would be welcome. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 06:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Referance fixes
Some of the referances go to Wikipedia, which is against policy. They need to be fixed. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 08:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Reworking the TV & Movies section
I think this should be structured more as a history of developments, rather than subsections for each show. So, we'd need to answer questions like:
- What was the first depiction of a space battle in a film? On television?
- What were particularly influential depictions at various times?
- How has the development of special effects influenced what we've seen?
I'm not sure the flat, uninteresting descriptions of the various weapons that are employed that we have here is useful. JulesH 23:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Uninteresting is, of course, your opinion (which I don't share). Q1 would also more then likely be highly unverifiable. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- JulesH's suggestions would be a big step towards making that section appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopdeia. Pete.Hurd 03:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Reverted changes
Could somebody please explain to me:
- The relevance of star trek's handheld phasers to space warfare? I've never seen them used in the show for anything except hand-to-hand combat.
- Why the Enterprise's ability to stun targets on the surface of a planet is relevant. This is the only sentence that seems relevant to individual targets on a planet's surface, and it doesn't seem to fit to me.
- The relevance of the colour of photon torpedoes to anything.
- Why a link to the article about Battlestar Galactica (1978 TV series) shouldn't be included in the main body text.
- Why a fair-use image that provides no useful information to the article and has no fair-use rationale provided for use on this page shouldn't be removed.
Or should I just put my changes back in? JulesH 13:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- To answer the last question, I believe that the photograph of the Death Star is very relivant to the section on the destruction of plants. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 01:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Perhaps so, although it still needs a fair use rationale before it can be used in the page, according to policy. And while it's relevant, I'm still not convinced it meets the requirement at Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy in section 8 of contributing significantly.
- OTOH, I was talking about the battlestar galactica image. This also lacks a fair-use rationale, and it's much less clear what it contributes. It's a picture of some guns. What does the reader learn by looking at it? JulesH 09:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Oh, I forgot about that part of Fair Use! As for the Battlestar Galactica picture, I'm sure a better one could be found and uploaded, but as of right now it is the best one I could find (although I must admit, I'm fairly certain that I didn't originally find it. I merely put it back). S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 02:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
[edit] Merge from space combat
I don't think this merge should happen, for a variety of reasons:
- Space combat is about games, which are different to fiction (although related to it)
- All the content there is unsourced, and potentially OR.
- Category:Space trading and combat simulation games should have a main article, and currently doesn't. If Space combat were tidied up, sourced and renamed to a better name, it would be an appropriate article for this task.
Any other comments? JulesH 12:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
