Talk:Steampunk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
To-do list for Steampunk: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh


Here are some tasks you can do:

    This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Steampunk article.
    This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
    Article policies


    Contents

    [edit] Sakura Taisen Historical or Fantasy World?

    I think that classifying Sakura Taisen as Fantasy World Steampunk is a big mistake... despite having fantasy elements, Sakura Taisen is very grounded in history drawing on a lot of real historical people and events, including the Mantetsu scandal, apperances by famous Japanese authors and playwrites of the time. It is based in a recognizable period of Japanese history, the Taishou era, the kanji of the name Taishou is slightly changed to give Sakura Taisen a unique feel, but it's still the same period. Every time I've edited this page to reflect that Sakura Taisen is more Historical then Fantasy world it's been edited back. But by Wiki's definition,

    "any recent science fiction that takes place in a recognizable historical period (sometimes an alternate-history version of an actual historical period) where the Industrial Revolution has already begun but electricity is not yet widespread, with an emphasis on steam- or spring-propelled gadgets."

    Fits Sakura Taisen completely. It's a recognizable period in history, were everything is powered by steam. So once more I'm editing this page, to include Sakura Taisen in the historical section... this time I have a reference too.

    Prince Rei 05:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Disraeli Gears?

    The article references "Tat Wood's essay Disraeli Gears (2003)." A guy on a Steampunk mailing list would really like to read this essay. Can anyone tell me where to find it? Scott Haley 18:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

    There has been some discussion of that [1] and t has drawn blanks. Check through the history to find out who added it and ask them. (Emperor 20:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC))

    [edit] 1984: Definitive Steampunk Movie?

    Wouldn't the movie adaptaion of 1984 be the definitive steampunk movie?

    192.254.1.7 18:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC) Rick G 5 March 07

    Not really. Not enough Steam technology for starters. I wouldn't even class it is steampunk. (Emperor 19:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC))

    [edit] In regard to External Links

    I reognized the "External links" section.

    One site was removed, since it featured one one specific item that could be categorized as "steampunk", but it offered no other Steampunk content whatsoever.

    Added my own website, since besides large Steampunk galleries, it is one of the few places that offers Dieselpunk content. Ottens 16:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Dieselpunk

    Dieselpunk gets its own section because someone has written on it; that other variants haven't yet been written about in as much detail is not a good reason to remove this material (it's perhaps reason to do more work on the others). As for where it belongs, I don't understand why anyone would think that there's a more appropriate place than this article. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 08:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

    Well it gets discussed above and the talk page for the list of steampunk works. As far as I'm concerned dieselpunk (as shown by the Sky Captain) is the more realistic end of retro-futurism and if you want to add anything on it then I'd suggest it should be over there. Not only is the technology different (as the name suggests) but also the general look is different. You might also want to see this (Emperor 14:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC))
    Your reasoning, though, is OR; the text itself states that dieselpunk is a variant of steampunk. I'm not myself interested in the scholastic subtleties of this, but sources should be give for your claim if it involves removing a chunk of text. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
    Urmmmm no the statement that dieselpunk is part of steampunk is the original research and is certainly not proven in the text using WP:RS. It isn't for me to prove it isn't it is for someone to prove it is. If they can't prove that it has to go. (Emperor 21:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC))

    [edit] External links

    Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided:

    10. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET.
    11. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.

    --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Please Stop Turning This Article Into A List

    the tendency is recurring to treat Steampunk as a list of works which have some (and sometimes very little) relation to the idea of "steampunk." this sort of tendency is best reserved for the companion article, list of steampunk works. Whateley23 22:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

    I agree - there seems a tendency to keep adding bands to the end of the subculutre section and some of them are either surely off the mark (The Dresden Dolls?) or apprently wildly inaccurate (Sarah Brightman? I thought this was a joke but it crops up here however it is still highly subjective). As with the whole entry it is probably best to not try and mention everything but use examples because of their importance/influence or because they make a relevant point about the genre. The list can scoop up everything else (although that needs monitoring too - as I've said on the talk page you prove its Steampunkery in the entry not just by tagging it on the list). In the music section I'd suggest trimming it down to just Abney Park and Vernian Process. (Emperor 22:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC))
    well, i'd say that Dresden Dolls is appropriate, and would suggest in addition that Humanwine and Rasputina are equally paradigmatic. however, i really don't care how short the list here is, only that it's shorter than it is now. Whateley23 05:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

    i'm starting to clear this out of the article. i'm making some executive decisions on some items (specifically the "Warcraft Universe" materials), due to notability. if anyone wants to argue for notability of other works, feel free to do so. Whateley23 06:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

    The Warcraft is incorrect in a way eq had tinkering gnomes and clockworks way before wow. BUt even in that if your going to discuss games it should be in its own section Dimentox 21:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

    i don't follow the videogame stuff so intently. please, edit as necessary. Whateley23 05:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Variants of the steampunk concept

    Are they? Or are they all really offshoots of cyberpunk? As variants on Steampunk it would be awfully diffcult to prove. What I'd suggest is moving the bulk of this over to Literary punk genres (which possibly needs a renaming but I can't quite put my finger on it) and bring clockpunk in as a section. So it'd split down with sections for cyberpunk, steampunk, dieselpunk, clockpunk, etc. with Template:Main pointing to entries like this and another "Other" section for sandalpunk, etc. As it is a lot of the information is replicated and a the braoder entry seems the best place for the information. (Emperor 14:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC))

    I'm hesitant to call for a split just on ideological grounds, and I'm hesitant to call them all "offshoots of cyberpunk" anyway; the Difference Engine shows its roots, but this article deals with a lot of anachronistic fantasy where the claim is more tenuous. Sectioning them like that suggests a hierarchy where none may exist. I reckon things should only be split when the sections on them are big enough to stand alone. Chris Cunningham 15:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    I'm not sure I'd call it ideological - that entry deals with x-punk/prefix-punk genres which would be a more comfortable home for sandalpunk/clockpunk/dieselpunk than here (a lot of the same information if already there) on the grounds that you'd need to prove that these are sub-genres of Steampunk while that entry is more general and inclusive. (Emperor 15:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC))
    I suppose. Feel free to experiment, anyway. I don't think anyone's particularly attached to the current taxonomy. Chris Cunningham 16:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/t/e/Talk%7ESteampunk_04a7.html"