Talk:Steampunk/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4 →

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)

Just bumping this to see if there is any other input. (Emperor 04:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC))

go for it. Whateley23 04:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Steampunk is vaporware! Muhahaha! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.165.145.38 (talk) 18:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Brazil

Shouldn't Terry Gilliam's film Brazil be mentioned somewhere in this article? Does anyone else agree?--Seth Goldin 22:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Not really no. Firstly not everything needs mentioning in this entry and most importantly this has come up before [1] [2] and the answer was no both times. (Emperor 23:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC))

good god no. please stop adding lists of things. there's an article for that at list of steampunk works. we should be trying to clear out the lists in this article, keeping it to an actual article regarding the topic, rather than description by example. in any case, as Emperor mentions, we've had this discussion before regarding that specific work. Whateley23 22:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Chymicalpunk

I've heard a couple of people use this term now, indicating (from what I'm told) a variation of Medieval Steampunk involving the Dark Ages and mainly concerned with advanced chemical compositions. Should it be added to the variants section or is it still too early in development (to my knowledge, there have been no published works of this ilk). Nick Curtis 12:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

too early, in my opinion. personally, i'd want to see it get some popularity before tagging it in. of course, that might also be said about some of the other "variants" currently mentioned in the article. still, adding yet another non-notable variant seems excessive. we'd do better weeding out the worthless ones we already have. Whateley23 07:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Way too early. Nowadays X-punk seems more a game than anything. I'd second the concern about variants as it stands (and above proposed some fixes) and I think it would be A Bad Idea to add something like this for the time being without half a dozen examples and without some degree of discussion on it (from reliable sources of course). (Emperor 16:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC))

Thanks for the insights. This is, of course, why I posted it as a discussion topic rather than just inserting it. With the plethora of -punk speculative literature genres bounding about, it is hard to figure out what deserves attention and what doesn't (and I am far from an authority on these matters). Thanks again.

A possible cultural bias

It can be argued that this article has a stronger british bias than is warranted by the works that comprise steampunk. In particular, the eras cited as inspiration are repeatedly referred to as victorian or edwardian when much of steampunk inspiration seems to stem from the culture of Austro-Hungary and Bavaria. This is especially evident in Anime costumes, for example the uniforms in full metal alchemist. But king Ludwig II of Bavaria (1845-1886) appears an obvious source of inspiration.

"(Ludwig II) was among the first to appreciate practical applications of science, such as electric lighting in vehicles, telephones in the home, and to understand the architectural possibilities of steel structures."[3] The king had a knack for grandiose projects it seems, and combined this with his interest in technology. One example was a plan for a steam-powered gondola lift held up by a balloon and carried over the Alps. This was 20 years before the first gondola lifts in europe. The lift, grandiose ofcourse, was to resemble a peacock. The king also commissioned an airship, which might have worked, but it was never completed. (Prof. Gerd Hirzinger is undertaking the project "Virtual Bavaria", making 3D models of the king's castles and dream-projects. For two pictures, see: http://www.forskning.no/Artikler/2006/juli/1153137335.54)

King Ludwig's ideas feature the steampunk hallmark of contraptions pushing steam-age technology to absurd lengths (The books "Ludwig II. - Traum und Technik" and "Ludwigs Traum vom Fliegen: --und andere bayerische Flugphantasien" by Jean Louis Schlim provide details) and I find it more than likely that many steampunk authors borrow from it, but I'd appreciate criticism of this idea.

EverGreg 21:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

PS: I think there's atleast one steampunk anime featuring armies with centrail european soldiers fighting between gigantic zeppelins and featuring counts and countesses that can't have drawn on victorian models. Does anyone remember the name?

I don't think this is an accurate observation. The existence of non-European anachronistic fiction is not in itself an indication that this article is Anglocentric. Secondly, anime depiction of Zeppelins and European nobility draws upon Victorian sensibilities almost by definition, even if the actors in question are Continental.

If you can source any of these claims, feel free to add to the article. I don't feel that such observations warrant concern at this time. Chris Cunningham 23:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I've argued elsewhere that Ludwig might be seen as a modern-day Steampunk icon [4] but, beyond the "Ludwig in fiction" section I don't know of any direct examples of other major influences that would support the statement "I find it more than likely that many steampunk authors borrow from it". If you can find evidence (WP:RS) then it could be worth working in otherwise it is WP:OR. I think the claims for British bias are not really supported. Obviously thanks to the influence of Wells a lot of early work is British, but I'd say the biggest early influence was French. Recently the biggest adopters of the genre have been the Japanese who use a range of settings but when recalling a Victorian-era a lot of people do plump for a British setting (see e.g. Steamboy). I imagine as the genre matures then there will be greater variety and there are already plenty of examples of non-British settings (especially Weird West ones). For now I think work on King Ludwig should go into that entry as his position as [airship pioneer still needs addressing over there. His innovations are only just making news in English-speaking areas so I suspect we may see some work based on him in the future and it'd be worth keeping an eye out for it. (Emperor 16:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC))

Thanks for your comments. The example I had in mind was the tv-series Last Exile. A steampunk anime with the children Lavie and Claus as the protagonists. (Note his german name). As recognized by reviewers, [5] [6] the technology and world is influenced by early 1900 germany. This in a cultural sphere which would include the world of Ludwig II. Obvious borrowing include the eagle emblem on the battleships, and allusions to german world war one flying aces. But the costumes in the series are less german-austrian than I recalled, the uniforms could just as well be napoleonic ones.

Anime borrow styles heavily from everywhere and so occurences of steampunk + german stuff could be a matter of chance. What speaks against this in the case of Last Exile is how the plot is centered on airships/vanship and castles, not merely as props and scenery. However, I'm not yet able to argue convincingly based on prevalence of "victorian sensibilities" vs "austro-hungary-german sensibilities" in steampunk. As Emperor mentions, steampunk may draw more on Ludwig II in the future so I'm content to leave this as an apropos on the talk page. EverGreg 17:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the statement about British bias, and add that there is a healthy subset of steampunk set in the American West. I know. That's a contentious statement, because steampunk is often set in an industrialized city setting, but what else would you classify it as? Fade (talk) 03:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyone find the reference...

Some commentators contest this conventional history of steampunk. Tat Wood's essay Disraeli Gears (2003) charts the history of the 'retro-Victorian techno-novel' through Victorian architecture, the art of Aubrey Beardsley and the Decadents, 1960s fantasy films and 1970s comics by Bryan Talbot and Moebius. For Wood, 'steampunk' is primarily a marketing category and essentially of US origin: 'Americans, especially in the era of Reagan, believed time and space to be interchangeable and West = Future, hence the genuine belief of American tourists that Britain is still physically in the 19th century.' Wood contends that The Difference Engine (like Gibson's Neuromancer, which has the same plot) is a riposte to simplistic assumptions about technology and money made by mainstream US science fiction and is characterised by its authors' interest in Victorian bricolage. Subsequent to this novel, he concludes, the most interesting developments in the field are in comics such as Alan Moore's The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and Promethea (which is not typically seen as a steampunk text).

Tat Wood's essay Disraeli Gears (2003) charts the history of the 'retro-Victorian techno-novel'.
- I am unable to find that essay anywhere in my university libraries, the internet or frankly anywhere else. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 16:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  - According to this amazon page Tat Wood has "written for Film Review, TV Zone, Starburst, SFX, Dreamwatch, Doctor Who Magazine, X-pose and just about every major fanzine going", so if you've already checked all those magazines, it might be in some Doctor Who fanzine (this page has a list of all the Who fanzines, you could look for ones that were publishing in 2003; this page has a list of currently-published zines). Of course you could also just get in touch with Wood himself by writing to the publisher of one of his books. Hypnosifl 19:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Clockwork Universe

Could someone else take a look at this: Clockwork Universe (fiction). There are dozens of entries all in their own category (as a sub-category of Steampunk) and I've read through it and I still don't know what it is. I have asked on the talk page and all that has happened is the author has removed the notability and reference tags I left. I feel I am missing something so I'm throwing it open here - has anyone heard of it or knows what it is? If so could they address the situation onthe entry to clarify matters. (Emperor 18:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC))

It looks like some kind of collaborative world-building project, similar to Orion's Arm. But I'd definitely be skeptical about whether it's notable enough to be on wikipedia, it would need some coverage in the mainstream media for that. Hypnosifl 02:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

And OA is massive and well known but still that entry looks weak. I have asked afew times what the Clockwork Universe is and haven't received an answer. (Emperor 02:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC))

Out-of-control article

After the first two sections, this article goes off into endless lists and refinements and speculations, almost all of it OR. Great stuff for an on-line forum, but beside the point in Wikipedia, since it is not sourced. (And if it is source-able, it still straggles--lists are potentially endless and make for nit-picky arguments.) By the time the gaming neologisms enter, I'm no longer taking the article seriously--the terminology of gaming has little connection to literary taxonomy, and that's the heart of the topic. You can't fit every possible point or connection into an encyclopedia article--trim it down to a reasonable length by cutting the lists and the original scholarship. RLetson 06:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I have expressed a few concerns along those lines. The broader issues are that the bulk of the references are just tagged on the bottom - they may as well just be further reading as they don't show what is supporting what statement. It then leaves the rest of the entry wide open to other people expanding on it without adding sources and so it is no longer clear what the references support and what they don't. The heading "Historical steampunk" also underlines some conceptual problems I have with things - just because someone made up a word to describe something doesn't mean some kind of line in the sand was drawn. Switching it aorund isn't Steampunk "Modern Victorian sci-fi" (gone wild)?

Anyway that is by-the-by I am slightly stumping as to how to address the main entry. I have suggested above that "Variants of the steampunk concept" is removed to a more appropriate place but beyond that... There has been a lot of efforts to try and stop the entry ebcoming too "listy" but that doesn't address the underlying problems you highlight. Tagging up obvious examples requireing sources is a start but we'd eitehr have to cut this all back or restart the entry. All suggestions are welcome. (Emperor 13:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC))

What I take to be the heart of the article is the first two sections plus some of the "Recent Steampunk" section. The rest is everybody piling on with homebrew scholarship/observations/me-too stuff. All that material about putative precursors, this-is-kinda-like-steampunk, and which anime or game contains steampunkish motifs can go--it's just about all OR anyway. A look at the Jessesword/OED entry points to plenty of source material: http://www.jessesword.com/sf/view/327. The Word Spy entry is nice, too, though it invites the kind of "this is really a movement" sprawl that turns the article into a free-for-all, everything-is-everything mess. I'd say, cut almost everything except the three sections I've pointed to, cut the lists to a bare minimum of exemplary works (no more than five to a category--books, anime/film/TV, comics), and add only material that is 1) reliably sourced (no blogs, no marketing copy, no subcultural neologisms-run-amok) and 2) helpful in understanding the nature and history of the subgenre. RLetson 17:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

i'm mostly in agreement. however, i'd really like the article to not lose one of the things about wikipedia which gives it its greatest value (and which, due to some poorly thought-out or worded policies, is getting edited away in a number of places - something which many people are complaining about): its detailing of cutting-edge popular culture. in some cases, blogs and "subcultural neologisms" are reliable sources. in any case, it seems particularly worthy of "wikipedic" description. Whateley23 00:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the problem is that "subcultural neologisms" and "cutting edge popular culture" are awfully difficult to source and blos are only WP:RS in tightly defined sitauations. Otherwise it gets to be someone's musings on a topic and we are back to the bloat.

Anyway in the next day or so I'll move the variants section to Literary punk genres and see if we can't make a decent entry out of it (as there is one in there somewhere). Cutting this entry down is going to be tricky and I sense edit wars may ensue unless we get a clear consensus of what should go here. That said no one has yet raised any concerns here so far to the suggestions - that may change as the cutting starts. (Emperor 02:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC))

i don't think that "difficulty" should be used as a constraint on what is possible to include. on the other subject, i'd very much like to see the "variant" retrotech genres moved to a more suitable place. it's definitely notable information, but doesn't seem to have much to do with "steampunk" proper. Whateley23 01:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Plan of action

OK things seem to have got worse since our discussion so I think we need to be radical. I propose removing:

Categories of steampunk
Steampunk as a subculture
Steampunk as an object style

They just keep bloating with no reliable references - critical no on has even proved "Medieval steampunk," etc. even exist outside of this entry. If people want to they can take these off to sandboxes and work on them there and let us see what they can come up with. I'm not saying these sections shouldn't be here but as they stand they are poor quality and rather than being fixed they are just getting worse.

Even the other sections need work "early Steampunk" starts with: "The origins of steampunk date back to the pioneering science fiction works of Jules Verne, H.G. Wells, Mark Twain and Mary Shelley" but no references. It could be argued that Steampunk is just a modern label for these earlier works or that these works are different from the period sci-fi (as they are set in an alternative past, while period work is set in a fantastical present or future). Either approach seems equaly valid and equally unsupported by references. An arguement could be made for removing this section but I'd like to see it stay and work on improving it.

So that is what I think needs doing - simply editting bits as it stands seems like moving the deckchairs on the Titanic. We need to take it back to a solid provable core and work from there: First nailing down the existing claims with good references and then looking at where adding more information can help complement this.

I know this isn't going to make some folks happy but this needs to be addressed head on. (Emperor 19:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC))

I think it's important to keep Steampunk as a Subculture up, as it has recently begun forming into it's own substantial subculture, and I for one see no slowing of it's growth anytime soon. We may want to consider just adding the Steampunk as an object style to the subculture section too. I also agree that the variations of Steampunk could be trimmed considerably. FACT50 18:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I tagged the section with citecheck. Even if the subculture is forming, I can't seem to find any reliable sources talking about it, and it would still fail on notability or No original research. On the contrary, Steampunk as an "object style" is much more documented, and it's citations can be expanded. DJFishlips (talk) 14:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

After looking over the entire article, I only see a few sections that need work. Everything above the variations on steampunk looks fine to me (with the one exception of the non-cited mention of John Clute). FACT50 03:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Problem is that the subculture (and object) have no reliable sources and, as it stands, is original research (the fact that you and I know it is a notable subculture isn't enough). I'd also suspect there are conceptual problems in that as defined it is a literary genre and as it is it'd be a bit like having Gothic fiction and Goth subculture in the same entry - they share a name and the latter was partly influenced by the former but the two can't be simply lumped together. If enough reliable sources can be found to justify keeping the section then they'd be able to support the entry "Steampunk subculture" which I think could include the subculture and the object style (and would be my ideal solution). So either way it seems that it shouldn't be here. Equally, "Categories of steampunk" is almost completely unsourced and there is no references suggesting such categories exist other than our saying they do. Even if we remove the sections the data isn't lost. If someone can find reliable sources then we can always fish relevant bits of information out. (Emperor 02:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC))

The reference to The Anubis Gates as Victorian is quite misleading, since most of the action takes place in 1810. Much as I love this book, I don't think I would call it steampunk anyway. Off2Explore 01:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't the game "Myst" be listed?

Just curious, shouldn't the game Myst be mentioned? Thanks. (comment was added by a user at the ip address 24.107.234.206 at 20:25, 12 June 2007)

first, please sign your comments. you can do this by using a series of four tildes (~~~~), which gives an automated signature with timestamp. second, no, we are trying to limit "description by example" in this article, in favor of actual description. Myst is noted at the companion article, List of steampunk works. Whateley23 03:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

"Literary sci-fi punk genres"

Should steampunk and clockpunk really be listed there? They're not only sci-fi subgenres. Just a thought. 207.30.253.250 19:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

What is this crap

Almost the entire article is original research and is peppered with irrelevant shit coined by nobodies, like "clockpunk" and "gaslight fantasy." The research isn't even that good. Among other flaws: the Japanese anime/manga influence is only implied, despite it having direct importance on the formation of the genre--ohyeah, and fullmetal Alchemist is listed but Secret of Blue Water is not; an explanation of the near-simultaneous rise within a decade of recognized cyberpunk and steampunk; and personally, I don't see how retrofuture fiction or "steampunk" as we define it now can be applied as a label to stuff that was relatively contemporary or even directly future to the authors like HG Welles and Jules Verne. This article should be started over, and the list of steampunk works is a prime example of why Wikipedia of Olde rejected list articles. It looks like Boingboing puked on this page.12.205.149.45 07:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any positive suggestions, or do you just intend to piss and moan? This is Wikipedia, which means that if you feel changes need to be made, you make them, you do not demand others do it. If there are mistakes, correct them, if things have been left out, add them. This long-winded rant of yours is not constructive. ---Theoldanarchist_Comhrá 15:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

And we are discussing fixing the entry above where a previous editor who didn't think the entry shaped up offered suggestions for moving things forward. That all said this is great: "It looks like Boingboing puked on this page" I might email that to them and suggest some kind of award. God knows what they have anything to do with things though, although they have recently taken an interest in the area, they aren't some kind of Evil Steampunk Masterminds (tm). (Emperor 17:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC))

Yes and unsigned comments are always taken very seriously. We'll get right on that for you. FACT50 21:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I was going to respond to the snobbery, but you're right. I'll make edits as I see fit. Unlike the people who wrote this article, I know when I don't know something. I just came into this article and was bombarded by crap and had an allergic reaction. I'm better now.12.205.149.45 09:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Steamboy.jpg

Image:Steamboy.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Clockpunk merge

Oppose as discussed on Talk:Clockpunk it should go to Literary punk genres along with a section here "Variants of the steampunk concept" see discussion above. Not sure what you want to do about that. I'd suggest scrapping this merge proposal and re-proposing it as that seems more inline with previous discussion on the subject. (Emperor 19:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC))

Oppose as the differences between the two genres is great enough to warrent seperation, I belive that the suggestion in the above post is a reasonable solution, I would suggest that it would also be a good idea to include dieselpunk in these plans.--Scorpion451 05:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment yes I'd like to expand the coverage over there, as long as we can source it. The Dieselpunk entry was saved here: User:Piecraft/Dieselpunk and there are sources we can use to sketch out a solid dieselpunk section. Also I am not 100% happy with the other entries name so if anyone can think of a better one drop it in over there. (Emperor 12:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC))

Support as Clockpunk currently is only able to define itself in the context of Steampunk. If Clockpunk is rewritten in such away that treats itself as a distinct variant or genre, then it can stand alone, but at the moment it is presented as a subgenre of Steampunk. --Waterspyder 17:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Closed Clockpunk has been deleted (see here) so it makes the debate a moot point. I still think something needs doing with the discussion of dieselpunk and clockpunk in this entry but see the discussion above for details. (Emperor 18:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC))

Original research

This article is about an interesting subject, and probably a good way to find neat fiction, but it seems horribly full of original research. A lot of the categorizations (both the categories and their entries) are not cited, and there are very few citations for an article of this size. I would like to say that those who wish to improve this article would do best to make it comply with basic Wikipedia policies. --Eyrian 18:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

That's what we are discussing above - if anyone has an detailled suggestions it might be best to add it there so we don't keep repeating ourselves. (Emperor 18:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC))

Early steampunk?

The whole premise of the 'Early Steampunk' section seems to be flawed. Isn't the premise of steampunk that the author is writing in early sf style but from the present day. It's a bit like saying 60s fashion is an example of 60s retro. I think it should be labelled 'Influences on Steampunk' or something similar. All the OR needs to be removed too and cites added. Ashmoo 23:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Gangs of NY is NOT steampunk!

Yes it takes place in a historical period, but surely it takes more than that to qualify. The phrase "aesthetized violence and highly stylish portrayal of the time period" is rather vague. Plus I don't think "aesthetized" is a word. CClio333 20:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Amen to that! Gangs... is not even close! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed non-cited sections

I went ahead and removed any information that we won't be able to cite (mostly due to it being info that only followers of the genre would know of). As much as it pains me to remove some things that I know for a fact are true. if I can't prove it, then it really doesn't belong in here. FACT50 16:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Does "General Leonardo" Belong Here?

Although I am not 100% sure what everybody agrees is steampunk (as I have written elsewhere), I have provided a phrase or two about General Leonardo by Erik Svane and Dan Greenberg (without the Amazon links, natch). An excerpt can be seen by clicking on the magnifying glass under the cover. If a majority thinks it doesn't belong, by all means remove it.

(Basically, the story is as follows: In the graphic novel series General Leonardo (three albums planned; In the Service of the Vatican and Crusade To the Holy Land published so far), Erik Svane and Dan Greenberg have the upper echelons of the Vatican forcing Leonardo da Vinci to build avant-garde military inventions (the tank, the hangglider, etc) in around 1480 in order to create an invincible army to embark upon a new Crusade to invade the Holy Land and reconquer Jerusalem.) Asteriks 10:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

As I said on the list talk page it sounds like clockpunk but is close enough to include on the list. I am unsure if it warrants inclusion here (along with Conrad Stargard as Medieval Steampunk) as it might be pushing the envelope and this entry isn't supposed to be all inclusive (that is what the list is for after all ;) ). I would recommend starting the entry though. (Emperor 12:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC))

"Steampunk as a subculture"

I think this entire section is problematic enough that it should be cut altogether. Most of its content is speculative---"steampunk fashion" is a great case in point: is this how steampunk fans dress? or is it how steampunk writers dress? or is it how people dress in steampunk novels?---and there are only two references, both of which are livejournal communities! The assertions about "steampunk music" are equally speculative. Has Tom Waits ever discussed steampunk? Is he influenced by it? Is he even aware of it? Once again, we have no answer. Furthermore, this secton has been a target for all sorts of speculative edits---the steampunk music list was, until just recently, much longer---with anonymous users putting their favorite band or fashion tendency in there. And why not, since there is no apparent standard for this ersatz subculture. Unreferenced, speculative, and a target for all manner of nonsense---I'd say that's the trifecta. Delete it. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree, RJ. WTF is steampunk muzik anyway, and who decides? I gonna get rid of the whole lot, and then what? Hank001 (talk) 11:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Vernian Process, and Abney Park have both stated that they create music with a "Steampunk" influence. VP, makes free downloadable music that is intended as Steampunk listening music. He was the first musician to create music strictly for a Steampunk setting. His wiki entry was deleted because it wasn't deemed notable, but within the Steampunk community, his work is rather well known. The same thing applies to Abney Park, they have a whole visual, and lyrical Steampunk style, and are probably more well known than VP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.82.98.51 (talk) 17:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

If that is true, there should be references which can be easily added that will back up the assertion. Without references, it all looks speculative. Saying, though, that the Vernian Process article was deleted as nonnotable does not make a good case for you here. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 19:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point. There are a number of interviews with VP floating around the net. But none of them are with major publications. 63.82.98.51 (talk) 21:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not in favor, generally speaking, of deleting content that can be referenced. But, if references, or notable references cannot be found, the whole lot will have to go. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 21:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Hary Potter?

Perhaps the fictional devices in the HP universe fit this? Most are a combination of magic and fire/clockwork/creatures/etc. 172.166.138.11 (talk) 03:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No. No way. Absolutely not. Harry Potter is not steampunk. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Dieselpunk (again)

Why is this section even in this article? It has nothing to do with steampunk. The section as it is currently written also strays off into all sorts of examples (Indiana Jones, Dark City, etc.) that do not have anything to do with dieselpunk. Some mention could, and should, be made that dieselpunk is the next step after steampunk, but this section strays far from the matter at hand. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This article has always had scope problems. The best way to deal with it might be to punt the section to its own stub article and link to it. Chris Cunningham (talk) 12:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I like that idea. Why, though, is there not a dieselpunk article already? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 19:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

There was; it's now a redirect. I think now would be an appropriate time to reverse that decision. Be my guest. Chris Cunningham (talk) 11:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Dieselpunk. Ottens (talk) 11:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellence. Chris Cunningham (talk) 12:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Great work, Ottens. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 05:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)