Wikipedia:WikiProject Science Fiction/Discussion Forum
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Please raise topics for discussion about WikiProject Science Fiction here.
Please sign your comments using four "~" characters, e.g. ~~~~. This will automatically enter your username and a timestamp after your remarks.
[edit] questions
Interesting start this project, but I am not sure I understand its aims. How does it intersect WP Novels and WP Films? It sounds like it offers a forum area for editors interested in SF. Being a Philip Dick enthusiast, I see very interesting scope here. Hoverfish 20:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Many of the participants in Novels and Films are mainly interested in science fiction, so it seemed like a good place to advertise. The aims are, first, to be a general meeting place for editors with similar science fiction interests, and second, to provide a WikiProject home for dealing with the various issues (like WP:WAF) that cut across a wide swath of content but don't get much attention except from policy wonks.--ragesoss 21:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Enlightment is the choice of the indivdual. Sci Fiction bombardes the user with fiction that appears to obe reality to the users of the sci fi technology. The one watching the Sci fic realizes he or she is on a higher level then the sci fi technology. The sci fi technology is simplistic to its users but complex to the ones who are not using. Once long ago things like tv, radio, were all scifi as early as the 1900's in fact. But now tv, is more complex it has buttons controls, signals, it is one step away from logic. I know see Sci fi tech on my computer scrren it is a lot like the tv, but i lot more like i am creating the sci fi. Becuase whether the sci be stuck in a two dimensional plane or stuck in a 3d plane with me creating it it exist. Science fiction is just the same as normal science so please stop confusing science with fiction it is getting old. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.128.154.42 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 16 December 2006.
- It is not clear to me what this comment has to do with organizing and improving Wikipedia pages in the science fiction category. Avt tor 01:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] sub-projects
is the idea for the WP:TREK and WP:WHO and the like to become sub-projects of this, or does this just cover "other SciFi"? or what? Morwen - Talk 17:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Sub-projects (but of course, connections like that are rather meaningless on WP); this is meant to be a project for those with a general interest in sci fi, including members of existing franchise-specific projects.--ragesoss 17:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- The big hole I see this project filling is for textual science fiction; currently the only real project for those interested in science fiction novels is the sprawling WikiProject Novels. So in part, this is a subproject of novels... but it seems artificial and less useful to limit the project by excluding the other media, since editors are likely to be interested in sf across media.--ragesoss 17:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- That makes sense. Morwen - Talk
- Agreed, and I would add fandom as an additional area. Avt tor 20:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Most emphatically; the Trek and Who people are a microscopic element of the broader field of SF (sorry, Morwen, I'm one of those who can't abide that term you used). --Orange Mike 23:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Overlapping projects
There are situations where different WikiProjects may have interest in a particular article. For example, I added Star Trek to this project, even though it was already listed under WikiProject Television, as I believe we'd have a (somewhat) different perspective. However, there are areas where I'm not sure the overlap applies. Someone added Serial Experiments Lain to this project; I think it's already well-covered by the Anime project and I'm not sure what additional or different value we might add to it. I don't want to delete anything without some discussion. Avt tor 19:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- WikiProjects don't really have any authority over articles beyond the authority of individual editors who edit the articles. In my view WikiProject banners are useful mainly for creating a stronger connection to the community. Having several projects "claim" an article just gives more options for editors who want to find a broader community of interested editors in case feedback or help is needed.--ragesoss 19:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia Day Awards
Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Manual of Style (fiction)
Hi there, I noticed that you brought attention to your Wikiproject on the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) talk page. Well done - I'm a large fan of science fiction myself, and I often use Wikipedia as a resource for such things. It's a big job!
The current Manual of style (writing about fiction) will have a big impact on a range of science fiction articles. Personally, I find the focus of the current article a bit lacking, as anyone who has a look at the current MOS talk page will note. I have put up an alternative draft proposal for comment, although not much response has been made as yet.
I encourage SF fans to take a look at the current MOS as well as the alternative draft and place any comments on the talk page. Your input will be very helpful! Thanks in advance Dr Aaron 05:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Infobox, Bottom box
We have an infobox on the side and a bigger bottom box at the bottom of the science fiction page. Do we need both? Avt tor 22:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- I made the bottom box ({{science fiction}}) because I didn't know about the existing side box ({{SF}}). If you look at the discussion on the bottom box's talk page, it used to be a side box until the folks that got Cyberpunk to FA said it was ugly as a sidebar. A bottom box format was suggested and implemented. - Malkinann 07:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- I'm inclined to agree that a bottom box makes more sense, for the simple reason that one can have mutliple bottom boxes but only one sidebar. Authors, books, films, and television shows each have their own sidebar infoboxes. I may be missing some detail. Avt tor 23:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] AfD
I put Firm science fiction on Articles for Deletion; please comment. Anville 21:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] MSTing Prod
Does anyone have sources for this? I know it was a big thing a while back ago, but no one has found any sources for it.--Rayc 04:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Google gets 28,000 hits on "MSTing", so it wouldn't be hard to do research. A prod is uncalled for, IMO. Avt tor 06:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] science fiction studies?
For a while now I've been annoyed at the relative dearth of information about science fiction studies in wikipedia. The major journals have stub articles (I note that New York Review of Science Fiction is being PRODded right now, apparently because someone did a google test & wasn't able to find, on the Internet, third-party articles about an academic journal. I'm really annoyed about this because (a) this is just a long-standing problem wikipedia has with inclusion of academics, academic fields, and what-not, and until it's solved wikipedia is going to be a land of fan-cruft (not that I totally hate that in all circumstances); and (b) as someone with a specific interest in sf studies, who has been slowly going at this, I feel I face the prospect of having to explain an academic discipline to people who really don't get it. So. Can we please have a section on science fiction studies as part of this project? If anyone else is supportive I'll write it up & put it in. --lquilter 04:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Agree. I just looked at the subjects list on the project page, and I was astounded that there's nothing for criticism, but I think Science fiction studies is a better category and can cover academia and serious criticism. Will help and support as I can (too many projects...) - PKM (new to this project but not to Wikipedia)
- Agree - One of the reasons for creating this WikiProject in the first place was to help identify and expand subject areas that had been previously ignored. There are some very qualified people to discuss academic aspects of SF. (I am not among them. :) ) Avt tor 18:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- I started the page Science fiction studies, and perhaps other interested folks would like to work on it as well. I also started a Category:Science fiction studies and began gathering things in. There's a lot of work to do. Thanks for both of your ready support & interest. --lquilter 02:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- I added various sf studies links to the main project page. --lquilter 17:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "Science fiction" as generic
There is a de facto practice of using "science fiction" in some articles as a generic term for speculative fiction/sf/horror/fantasy/etc. Naturally this causes some confusion, because we use "science fiction" in the narrower sense in other places, and break out "fantastic", "horror", etc. I'm not going to propose that we try to define and distinguish and force everyone into using a prescribed set of terminology / hierarchy, because I think that woudl be very contentious. Instead, I want to suggest that we ought to write something up in this project that explains these two uses of the phrase "science fiction". That way, the non-cognoscenti, the casual editors, and so on, can be pointed to the explanation when they stumble upon a confusion. We could also develop a set of very brief definitional templates that distinguish and explain the use of the term "SF", "speculative fiction", "science fiction", as generic; that way when we see that a page is using a term one way or the other, we can add in the appropriate definitional/distinction template at the top to clear up any confusion. --lquilter 17:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Note: There is an article, Science fiction and fantasy, which talks about the genre terms. I'm still thinking through whether this is the best title for the article, and what the article should really cover. --lquilter 16:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] RFD Category:Worldcon Guests of Honor
Just wanted the people involved in this project to be aware that the Category for Worldcon Guests of Honor has been tagged with a request for deletion. If you have an opinion pro or con, please weigh in. --JohnPomeranz 23:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Jack Williamson
I've placed the science fiction project template on the Jack Williamson talk page. TheQuandry 20:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Scope and template
Hi. I'm not a member of this project, but I'm seeing a bit of resistance against adding the project template to individual works, such as Serial Experiments Lain. I think there are two issues here
- The template is rather large compared to other project templates.
- The bigger concern seems to be one of scope: Is adding all SF works to the project a good idea, or should templates be added only to
- articles with Mid or higher importance to SF, and
- other articles (such as about individual works) which are not covered by other projects?
What do you think?--GunnarRene 15:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- I was a bit disappointed at the removal of the template from SEL, (which I'd added) and the rating of Evangelion as 'low' - mid would have been more appropriate, I thought. I think maybe there's a tendency to skew towards the Western canon? I've not joined the wikiproject, although I have been involved in the copyediting of science fiction and I have tagged various articles with the project template.-Malkinann 01:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Template:Science Fiction Project Error
The project template is somewhat flawed. For the 'type' parameter, when 'article' is inserted, it reads "This article is a Article." (Example:Talk:π (film)). I don't really want to muck with a template for a project I'm not part of, but I thought I'd let you folks know about it.--NPswimdude500 05:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm aware of the problem. If anybody has skill in editing templates, please feel free to fix it. Avt tor 15:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
