Talk:List of nuclear holocaust fiction

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
See also: Talk:List of nuclear holocaust fiction/Original lists

Creation notes[edit]

This page was created when I spotted a large list of nuclear-themed fiction being created in Jericho (TV series), in lieu of a relevant/on topic See Also section. Lower section is a similar, but far longer list, found on The Day After. Intend to merge into a cohesive list in the next 24 hours. MrZaiustalk 04:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found more in Threads. Added see also sections with links to this page to all articles linked to above "Films and television productions". Still to be done:

  • Link here from the other articles
  • Link to Nuclear weapons in popular culture from all articles linked to from here - If they're relevant here, the popular culture article is relevant there. (Missed this in most of the articles above "Films and television productions")
  • harvest any OTHER off-topic lists for this one
MrZaiustalk 05:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Harvested list from Nuclear Holocaust, adding several new categories MrZaiustalk 19:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

other fiction[edit]

As noted elsewhere. Comicbooks also feature nuclear weapons. There are post apolcalyptic depictions (that allude me now) but also depictions of nuclear weapons (The Hulk for example). The Dark Knight Returns features the effect of a single nuclear explosion effectively crippling the USA. AlanD 20:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then list 'em. 198.247.174.254 00:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will when I've gaged opinion on here. Opinions? AlanD 00:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it's fiction that takes place after large scale nuclear war, then it fits the bill. No need to ask permission, though. Article's brand new. Take the initiative and help create something worth keeping. If you did so at this time, you'd be one of only four users to have ever edited the article. See [1]. To determine whether any given article warrants listing here, see Nuclear Holocaust. The term refers to nuclear war that destroys or nearly destroys human civilization. MrZaiustalk 18:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added The Punisher - The End to the list of comic books dealing with nuclear war. I hope I got the formatting right. 87.234.85.196 18:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're having an obvious miss when we are not putting Red Dawn in the Film section

Inasmuch as the film Red Dawn is the Nuclear demolition of DC, and the Invasion of the USA by Contra's Cuban Military, and the USSR

Come ON "red dawn"Therubicon (talk) 07:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This list is for fiction that involves a nuclear holocaust, which means a full or near-full nuclear exchange. Red Dawn doesn't qualify; the Soviets use a limited strike to take out our retaliatory capability, and then invade. Xihr (talk) 22:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caps[edit]

This article is capitalized to match the case of Nuclear Holocaust, as the term generally refers to a single, particular event, like The Holocaust in World War II. Witness the tendency to capitalize both terms outside of the wiki, as well [2]. If you care to debate this notion, do so in that article first and change both after posting Template:Move for a reasonable length of time. MrZaiustalk 19:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really appropriate to complain about a supposed "undiscussed, known to be debatable move" when you yourself moved the page away from List of nuclear holocaust fiction without any form of discussion. Not worth arguing over, although Wikipedia's article naming guidelines do state:

"For multiword page titles, one should leave the second and subsequent words in lowercase unless the title phrase is a proper noun that would always occur capitalized, even in the middle of a sentence."

The term "nuclear holocaust" is not always capitalized; the aforementioned Google search of the term reveals that the capitalized references are headlines, reverting to lower case within the body of the article. (The fact that Nuclear Holocaust is incorrectly titled is not a valid argument for mis-titling this article to match it.) I'll wait a few days for discussion before restoring the correct title, but right now the page contravenes the naming convention. --Ckatzchatspy 00:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My main point above was that it would be better dealt with in the parent article and, more importantly, with a formal proposed move. MrZaiustalk 01:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it were a controversial move, then yes, a formal move request might be in order. However, this is merely a procedural matter - the page is misplaced and should be restored to its original location. (The title of the Nuclear Holocaust article is not relevant to this move - titles can be piped for esthetics i.e. nuclear holocaust.) --Ckatzchatspy 01:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am well aware of MediaWiki link syntax. In most cases, I would agree with you. However, again, in the Nuclear Holocaust article, the wiki currently has a definition that refers to a single event for which "Nuclear Holocaust" is title as well as descriptor. The definition reads as follows: "The term "Nuclear Holocaust" compares the possible all-out nuclear war to the Holocaust." As such, the other article is highly relevant to your point, and is a more appropriate place to make it. If it's wrong here, it's wrong there, and vice versa. Seems more appropriate to discuss it in the article that includes substantive discussion of the topic, not just a list of related works.
WP:MILHIST#NAME seems to be the closest thing to a style guide for the topic at hand, seeing as the main article is currently categorized as a military stub. There's currently no explicit mention of particular conflicts or events in the Manual of Style for capitalization. MrZaiustalk 02:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caps, revisited[edit]

The nuclear holocaust article has just been moved to the uncapitalized title, per a listing at WP:RM and accompanying discussion. It seems appropriate to suggest that this article be moved likewise; I'm not just completing the move because I see it's come up here before, so it might be best to ask first. Opinions? -GTBacchus(talk) 08:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it came up here initially, and was echoed with a move of this page shortly afterwards. MrZaiustalk 20:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chronological vs. Alphabetical?[edit]

I don't really see how alphabetical is "more intuitive". Alphabetical order is only relevant if one already knows the name of a film or program. Chronological order gives a better view of how the topic has been treated in popular culture over time. Pjbflynn 23:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I was going to commment on this myself when I found the above. Nihil novi 19:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please use chronological - it's FAR easier to read and understand when looking at just about everything on wikipedia. 71.165.76.188 (talk) 08:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Title vs. entries[edit]

Not all entries fit the title and the first paragraph, as they do not picture a nuclear holocaust/massive nuclear attack. Like:

  • Sum of all Fears
  • Fail-Safe
  • Broken Arrow
  • Amerika

So: Remove the incorrect entries or adjust the first paragraph? --MushroomCloud 18:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Fail-Safe and Amerika do depict rather large scale nuclear attacks, although the last depicts a United States in which the damage was mostly limited to atmospheric bursts and EMP. I'd argue that both of those works should probably stay in the list. The other two, however, likely should be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mrzaius (talk • contribs) 19:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Fail-Safe features only two nukes, one of which was deployed by accident. Amerika sports four, all of which were only used for EMP. Neither of them lead to a “holocaust” (although, admittedly, it would have been a possibility in Fail-Safe). In Fail-Safe, only two cities were destroyed (reminds me of something), and in Amerika, the USA were occupied, but under control. --MushroomCloud 21:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On that same track, I'd argue that 24 has no place on the list either. There's no breakdown of social order, no end of public services like police, firefighters, et cetera, a return to community-centric organization by dint of all other government failing that's the hallmark of the genre. One nuke does not a holocaust make. - Random stranger.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.77.238.41 (talk) 13:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with "List of apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction"?[edit]

I would keep "List of nuclear holocaust fiction" as a separate article because:

  • the subject is prominent enough to merit separate treatment, and constitutes a long list;
  • the article is already linked to related articles for reader convenience;
  • "List of apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction" is an unwieldy and ambiguous title (I would have called it "List of apocalypse fiction").

I would, however, propose inserting a hyphen, for clarity, between "nuclear" and "holocaust" in this article's title, because "nuclear-holocaust" comprises a single adjective that modifies the noun "fiction."

Nihil novi 19:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apocolypse could be caused by many different events such as natural factors while nuclear is a man made holocaust specifically talking about the aftermath of nuclear war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.244.216 (talk) 01:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After a year, consensus of those who have responded appears to be to keep the articles separate. I'm removing the merge banner from this article. The two renaming suggestions above should be handled separately. Ipoellet (talk) 22:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear Holocaust Fiction in English?[edit]

seems no non-English fiction is included on this page, so perhaps the title should be modified. 9ulk—Preceding undated comment added by 9ulk (talk • contribs) 22:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or editors familiar with notable non-English nuclear holocaust fiction could start adding it to the article. There actually is at least one non-English entry in the article now, Malevil by Robert Merle. PubliusFL 18:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Music list[edit]

Someone has compiled a list of nuke songs from the 1980s here: http://www.inthe80s.com/nuclearwar/index.shtml

I have not had a chance to go through it and verify its accuracy (or verify that those songs weren't already on the list) but thought I'd post it here for the general good. Jkp1187 (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Others to add[edit]

I would add Patrick Tilley's 'Amtrak Wars' to the list The Amtrak Wars, not only are they set in post nuclear war apocalyptic Earth but they feature a really interesting advanced bunker based civilization.

A book film that surely should be here is HG Wells 'The Time Machine' The Time Machine, in the 1960 film version the Morlock civilization is definitely post nuclear.

Another is L Ron Hubbard's 'Battlefield Earth' again set hundreds of years after a fairly one sided nuclear war - between humans and Psychlos. - The book should never be compared with the movie, widely regarded as one of the worst ever made.

Finally would be Samuel R Delany's 'The Fall of The Towers' one of the truly great 'forgotten' science fiction masterpieces. The civilization seems to be set on an earth thousands of years after a nuclear holocaust.

Hope that helps Lucien86 (talk) 05:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about Kevin Costner's "The Postman" and Star Trek "First Contact" (or rather "Borg"). [[[Special:Contributions/79.196.198.47|79.196.198.47]] (talk) 01:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)][reply]

In the book Battlefield Earth the human race was wiped out by a Psychlo chemical weapon probe - not a nuclear exchange. I cannot remember of the remaining humans employed nuclear weapons on the Psycho occupation force, but I do not think so. Later the Psycho main planet was destroyed by human nuclear weapons transported there with a shipment of gold.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.59.92 (talk) 16:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1984 is post-nuclear. Can't believe this one was overlooked. One of the earliest examples. 71.244.105.49 (talk) 00:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

its notclear war[edit]

There are a number of entires that seem to be iffy at best.

  • The Day the Earth Caught Fire although iuts caused initaly by nuclear tests its not that that casues the damage but runaway global warming caused by moving closer to the sun, also nukes may actauly stop it(the film leaves that unsure). As such it is not about Nuclear war nor nuclear holocaust.
  • Fail-Safe deals with the destruction of two cities, so the applocalypse is rather limited.
  • By Dawn's Early Light deals with attmepts to stop a nuclear holocaust, Again I would argue that the world (and civilisation) survives as such its not appolcalyptic.
  • Deterrence Again seems to deal with a non applocalypse in which only three bombs are droped, and two do not work.
  • Special Bulletin is about one bombthat dtroys a city.
  • By Dawn's Early Light is about the averting of a nuclear holocaust (but at least is about one)
  • Jericho Destruction is limited to the US,so its not an appoalype (indead the rest of the worlds appears send aid indicaing jhat no one else is that afected) Also the catastrphy is limited to what 13 cities, so even tyhe USA is not destroyed.

Why are these on a list that should be about the end of civilisation, not the destruction of a coule of cities?Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a serious problem with the list. There are a bunch of works on here that consider the possibility of a nuclear holocaust without one actually happening. The page intro reads "a world during or after a massive nuclear war, nuclear holocaust, or crash of civilization due to a nuclear electromagnetic pulse." This means that something like Jericho could still fit (American, Korean, and Iraqi civilizations crashe due to widespread use of nuclear weapons), but something like WarGames (in which the war never happens) or Last Resort (only two weapons are used, they're limited to Pakistan and the story isn't told from a Pakistani perspective) wouldn't fit. The big test is aftermath/consequences. The effect of the bombs doesn't have to be world wide, but it does have to be "massive" enough that the aftermath is one of the primary subjects of the media. Will attempt a cleanup, but could use some help from others who are familiar with the genre.Pwoodfor (talk) 22:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stricter or Looser Criteria Needed[edit]

When I added The Bedford Incident it was deleted. OK, it does actually depicts circumstances under which nuclear war might occur rather then aftermath of nuclear confrontation. But so does Dr. Strangelove (1964) because there is no nuclear war, throuhout the film there are efforts to stop bombers until the the film's very end. Only at the end nuclear war starts and then is also debated possibility of survivale and continuation of conflict (mineshaft gap). Also in Dreams ("Mount Fuji in Red") (1990) story is about nuclear reactor accident and not about a war. And The Day the Earth Caught Fire (1961) is about consequences of nuclear testing on the life on the Earth, not about war. So please or keep the same criteria upholded so far and include The Bedford Incident (1965) or cleanup the list and keep only the movies that depicts world while the nuclear bombs are falling, or after the bombs have fallen, and civilisation and people are living or trying to survive in a world after the fulscale nuclear war or limited nuclear excange. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.141.101.229 (talk) 18:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree (see above) I do however disagree with Dr Stangelove. It does depsict a nuclear Holocaust, in the sense of the opening shots of what is stated to be the denanation of a doomsday bomb. It is quite clear from the dilaogue that what is represented is the end of civilisatio as we know it. I also disagree that this page should list limited nuclear war, its about nuclear appocalypse, not nucelar war.Slatersteven (talk) 18:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Strangelove (1964) shows how it came to nuclear holocaust, as well as the nuclear excange at the end, after one Air Force General decided to take things into his own hands. The Bedford Incident (1965) shows how it came to nuclear holocaust, some time after Cuban Missle Crisis, after destroyers Captain decided to surface Russian submarine. At the end of the film it is clear that what was avoided in waters near Cuba now escalated probably to full scale nuclear war. Both film consider the circumstances of how the cold war could turn into the hot one. On the other hand we have The Day After (1983) that perfectly fits this article since it depicts events before the outbrake of the war, war and it's consequences in the aftermath of nuclear excange. So if the criteria is full scale war at the beginning, middle or at the end The Bedford Incident (1965) should be included in the list.
Now the one question remains: What is criteria for entries in this article?
My proposition is this:
  • Nuclear war
    • Limited nuclear war
    • Full-scale nuclear war
  • Aftermath of the nuclear war
    • Life during and immediately after nuclear war
    • Life in some more or less distant future after nuclear war
If one, some or all of these criteria is/are met then the work should enter list, where the one does belong, in this article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.141.101.229 (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Bedford Incident only shows the exchange between the two ships, the final shotbeing the mushroom cloud from the Soviot subs torpedoes, indead we have no information as to any escalation (if any). The final of Dr Stangelove shows more then one explosion, it also makes it clear in the dialoge that this is indead a nuclear applocalypse. We know there is escalation, we are told that it will (and does) happen.
In reponse to your propsals I would say that this article should cover only Full scale nuclear war and its aftermath. After all that is what a nuclear holocaust is, or change the name (say to nuclear disagrement).Slatersteven (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the Cold War there could not be such thing as limited nuclear excange between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. It was self-explenatory that when the one nuke goes off that there would be full scale retaliation. Political situation in the movie was portrayed through comunication with NATO command. The Bedford Incident (1965) was made some short time after Cuban Missle Crisis when the Cold War was at it's hight and it works in that context. The hole point of the Cold War was that no one fires first nuclear shot because there will be a full scale retaliation.
Nuclear holocaust in the fiction is well known subject. So I would recomend work by Paul Brians, Nuclear Holocausts: Atomic War in Fiction. It could be found on the following web page: http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/nuclear/ . It seems to me that it provides good orientation for criteria.
Under the light of everything that was told I will put this questions before wiki community:
  • Should The Bedford Incident (1965) be included in the List of nuclear holocaust fiction
  • Should all the works dealing with issues of nuclear holocaust be included in this list regardless of wheather nuclear holocaust occurred or not ie. although nuclear holocaust was almost immanenent it was successfuly avoided or limited (By Dawn's Early Light (1990), Chain of Command (2000))
  • Should only the works where successful nuclear holocaust occurred be included in this list ie. there is no hope for mankind and life on Earth
  • Should the works where successful nuclear holocaust occurred but there is hope for mankind and life be included in this list
Let the Wiki community decide—Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.141.101.229 (talk) 23:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be synthasis. We assume that Nato and the Pact actualy know what happened in the end. We assume that the politicians cannot smoth over what was a nasty accident casued by a nuerotic commander. Yes the film is about the danger of nuclear wa, it is about how one unstable man could create the spark to start one. Its about the spark, we never know if then spark turns in to a fire. But if you wish to take this to community please do.Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is an easy way to deal with this issue. It seems obvious that in Cold War era movies, the threat of nuclear war and the many fictional story-lines where a war is started by the mistaken use of one weapon meant that a movie, show, etc. that ends with a mushroom cloud is ending with a full-scale war. It was part of of cold war cultural vocabulary. Still, like Slatersteven said, just because we can see that doesn't mean we should make assumptions, that would be synthesis. The measure should be the content of the media. If the entire plot of a movie consists of the characters trying to prevent a full-scale nuclear war by preventing the use of one bomb, then obviously if that bomb goes off, they fail and there is a war (assuming at that point that the incident COULD be dealt with diplomatically would be a similar kind of synthesis). If, on the other hand, the plot of the movie has characters trying to stop one bomb just to save lives or prevent a nuclear incident, then nuclear war on a massive scale is only a possibility that we imagine.Pwoodfor (talk) 23:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Table needed[edit]

The Films section has a sortable table but the other sectons do not. I think it would be very helpful to create table for those too, so it can be sorted by the reader based on date vs name, etc. Anyone up to the task? I'm not as well versed in that. I can make the attempt but would rather have someone with experience do it.--MartinezMD (talk) 14:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Short story suggestion[edit]

Should A Letter from the Clearys be on the list of short stories? 122.49.141.104 (talk) 08:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of major movies missed?[edit]

I suggest The Matrix and Terminator: Salvation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.32.57.57 (talk) 08:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not asure how we missed The Matrix (I just added it, thanks for pointing it out), but Salvation would be considered to be under the Terminator umbrella.--MartinezMD (talk) 20:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Matrix could have missing because there isn't full scale nuclear holocaust. In The Second Renaissance, nuclear weapons target only two cities:
  • 01 as a humanity's first try to destroy machine (the second try is Operation Dark Storm which didn't use nuclear science);
  • New York when machine ambassador fools the last important human nest.
The Matrix Machine War holocaust isn't properly nuclear.
Lacrymocéphale 21:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barefoot Gen[edit]

"Barefoot Gen, Japanese manga about life after the Hiroshima bombing"

Since the Manga ist - at least in parts, especially in the first half of the series - autobiographical, and not about a holocaust, why is it in alist of "nuclear holocaust fiction"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.24.177.245 (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Planet[edit]

What about the song Hello Planet by the Vocaloid Miku Hatsune, written by sasakure.uk? It may not be popular, but you can buy it on itunes. Its all about a robot living in a future after man has been wiped out by nucleur bombs trying to figure out what happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.32.11 (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Provide evidance of notability please.Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um...I don't really understand what that means, but here is the song with english subtitles and a music video: [3] . It is also a sequel of this song (english subtitles provided):[4] and all are written by sasakure.uk. In the prequel song to Hello Planet it is obvious that a nuclear war is about to happen and Hello Planet describes the aftermath. Mew Mitsuki (talk) 19:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC) Oh, and here is the itunes bit that shows that its not just some random made up not published song: [5] It's listed number 13 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mew Mitsuki (talk • contribs) 19:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What it measn is that you have to demonstrate notability, not just exsistance Wikipedia:Notability.Slatersteven (talk) 12:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain notability? I'm not really used to the lingo and stuff around Wiki, I only get on to edit every now and then. Mew Mitsuki (talk) 20:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He provided the link on notability in his response to you. It is covered in that article.MartinezMD (talk) 02:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow I'm such a ditz ^^; Anyways, I read the article, and I'm still a little confused on how to demonstrate notability. I already gave a source that has significant coverage, I'm not self-advertising, etc. Also, the link you gave me specifically states that the rules listed in it only have to do with the creation of an article NOT with its content. I'm not asking that we make a whole page dedicated to Hello Planet. I'm saying that we add it in the content of an already existing page. Mew Mitsuki (talk) 23:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but apart from youtube (which is not RS) the only source you have provided just proves it exists, it does not contain any information. You need third party RS discussing this and saying its about nuclear war (although it may be the lyrics are acceptable, if the translation is accurate) as I cannot find any referance to nuclear war in the lyrics. I suggest the RSN notice board for this one.Slatersteven (talk) 00:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[6] Go down to Shuumatsu-ron section, and it talks all about the whole series, mentioning specifically Hello Planet (while also referencing Our 16-bit Wars, Weekend (Worldend) is Coming, and Wanderlust). And uh...what's the RSN notice board? Mew Mitsuki (talk) 17:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to check if TVtropes is RS. As its a wiki I doubt it. WP:RSNSlatersteven (talk) 14:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay...but whats an RSN notice board? Mew Mitsuki (talk) 21:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its a notice board for the discusion of sources and if they are reliabel or not.Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah okay. Just saw that tvtopes is officially nonreliable source...and I really don't feel like keeping this up anymore even though I know I"m right but there aren't any sources I can give that aren't youtube oriented or in different languages that I don't even understand. So...yeah. I guess we don't have to add it. Mew Mitsuki (talk) 20:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a foriegn language source post the linik here(or at the RSN board) and ask if someone else can translate it and confirm if it backs up the edit you wish to make.Slatersteven (talk) 20:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I'll go do that. Mew Mitsuki (talk) 19:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need someone here to translate. If you find your source using Google it can do a basic translation. Usually it is clear enough to understand the general points if not better.MartinezMD (talk) 22:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow I'm stupid. Okay here it is [7] it is a transcript of the diary of the Master ('you' described in the song) that can be found in the video game version of Hello Planet (called Haropura in this quick google translation). It describes the nuclear war going on and how he made Miku (the main character in the song) and taught her to sing and gave her the plant in the song and some things about the song Wanderlast. The game was found in Project Diva. Oh, and here on the offical sega site for Project Diva they explain the minigame based on the song as being Miku going through a nuclear war-torn world. [8] (you need to scroll down a little to see it its like the third paragraph). I'm pretty sure the sega site would be a reliable source. If not I can find more. Mew Mitsuki (talk) 01:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questioning the accuracy of scenarios presented in various Nuclear Fiction works[edit]

Does anyone else feel like a page on Nuclear Holocaust Fiction should include how they are not to be taken as likely? Criticism is due.

For example it is commonly believed that a nuclear war would result in a Nuclear Winter whereas that is highly speculative, as discussed in the article.

More concretely, it is commonly believed( due in no small part, to the public viewing 'Nuclear Fiction') that a Nuclear War would result in massive amounts of deformed grotesque mutant babies being born, however over 50 years of study into the effects of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have found the exact opposite.- The RERF clearly state- No statistically significant increase in major birth defects or other untoward pregnancy outcomes was seen among children of survivors. Monitoring of nearly all pregnancies in Hiroshima and Nagasaki began in 1948 and continued for six years. During that period, 76,626 newborn infants were examined by ABCC physicians. http://www.rerf.or.jp/radefx/genetics_e/birthdef.html

Lastly, it is common in Nuclear fiction to mock Civil Defense, again due to no small part in the public watching and believing Nuclear Fiction. However a 2010 paper by Melissa Smith -Architects of Armageddon: the Home Office Scientific Advisers'- states clearly- detailed research programmes lay behind the much-mocked government civil defence pamphlets of the 1950s and 1960s http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=7805718

So bearing all that in mind, shouldn't there be a section critiquing Nuclear Fiction? especially since it is usually the source of much of people's false beliefs on what Nuclear War would be like. Nuclear War would be horrific no doubt, but much of the Nuclear Fiction out there is utter nonsense.

At the very least, there should be a Nuclear Fiction page, like there is for accurate Sci-Fi Hard Science Fiction that includes works that are characterized by an emphasis on scientific & technical detail and accuracy.

What do you all think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boundarylayer (talk • contribs) 00:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, this articel is about fiction, not nuclerar war.Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Hard Science Fiction is also Fiction, but for the most part it is based in reality/the laws of physics apply, that is why it is not lumped in with general Science Fiction. Thus neither should Nuclear Fiction be such a broad article. Boundarylayer (talk) 05:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well its in the articel on science fiction.Slatersteven (talk) 11:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't understand, whether it is fiction or not, is not up for debate, of course it's fiction. So too is Hard Science Fiction but works in that genre follow the laws of Physics and reality. However many Nuclear Holocaust works present absurd biology and physics errors, just like Science Fiction. What I'm proposing is a new section or article to be created that only discusses Nuclear Holocaust works that are not improbable/laughable ones, in a similar vein to Hard Science Fiction. Boundarylayer (talk) 10:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand, I just don't see that there is a distinction drawn outside of this thread. We will create a new Genre of Hard nuclear war fiction, that is nt wiki's job. Moreover this is a cover all, list, in the saem way that the List of science fiction novels does not differentiate between 'soft' and 'hard' SF.Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to create a new genre(and if I were going to write a book you'd be in it :-), we simply have to divide the fiction list into those that are accurate in their presentation and those that are not. For example, On the Beach was heavily criticised for being woefully inaccurate. Boundarylayer (talk) 15:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One thing to keep in mind - with all of the atmospheric testing from the 1940's to the 1960's (along with Hiroshima and Nagasaki), some <who?... hahaha can't find the link GIFYS> claim that the Earth has already experienced the equivalent of a moderate intensity prolonged nuclear war. Granted it came without the social impacts of a war (nobody dead, economies intact).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.59.92 (talk) 17:41, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is not a forum. The basic point of this was to ask if we should comment on how feasible something is and in the end, this is not a place to discuss whether or not a specific vision of a nuclear holocaust would be likely to happen. Long story short, it doesn't have to be realistic in order to count as fiction. We're not here to judge which is more likely, just compile a list of the most notable pieces of fiction out there. Anything else would be seen as original research (WP:OR) and has no place on Wikipedia. I'm closing this off, as this just invites further discussion on a subject matter that doesn't improve the page in the slightest. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Atomic Cafe[edit]

The Atomic Cafe is not a piece of fiction, but rather a documentary about 1950s "Cold War Culture". I propose that we remove it from the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iannerd97 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As it's not fiction I woudl agree.Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blade Runner doesn't belong on this list[edit]

There is NOTHING in the 1982 Blade Runner film to suggest it takes place after a nuclear war. It's possible Dick's novel might be so set, but the movie takes many liberties with the novel. The description with it seems to be a possible violation of WP:NOR. I suggest its removal. 70.72.211.35 (talk) 20:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I agree with you - in the book there was mention of "World War Terminus" whatever that means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.59.92 (talk) 01:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Road[edit]

Nowhere in the film or novel The Road is the nature of the cataclysm revealed. In fact in both the film and novel cities are somewhat intact. There is no mention of radioactivity. Additionally, there is numerous mention of increased seismic activity, suggesting a non nuclear event - but that is speculation on my part. McCarthy himself never finalized the nature of the event in his mind. When asked if it was a nuclear war or a comet, he replies something along the lines of, "Yes." (Can't find the link to that interview.) "A long shear of light followed by a series of low concussions" or some such. That is all the detail we get. In the story of Man asks Eli (the old man) to "tell him where the world went" suggesting that the Man didn't know what happened either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.85.139.107 (talk) 16:28, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. I believe the author intentionally left the cause vague. I can't find any reliable source that give the cause.MartinezMD (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the nature of the event was never disclosed and 'The Road' therefore doesn't belong on this list. However, as you said: "there is numerous mention of increased seismic activity, suggesting a non nuclear event" - well, in a global thermonuclear war, earthquakes and other seismic activity could (theoretically) increase due to the shock and energy of many megaton-class weapons detonating near fault lines (many nuclear targets are along fault lines; Anchorage, Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Rome, Reykjavik, Istanbul, Gibraltar, Islamabad, Tokyo, Jerusalem, Karachi, New Delhi - just to name a few). So that doesn't really point away from nuclear warfare as the potential cause of the event, rather it serves to make it even more ambiguous. There's always, too, the potential that the writer could have just combined a bunch of different cataclysmic events with no real cause just to make us ask "What the hell happened?" Jade Phoenix Pence (talk) 21:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)Jade Phoenix Pence[reply]

Similar articles/lists...[edit]

Any works here in which there is any question, doubt or ambiguity about whether being nuclear in nature, should be considered for either;

(there's no need to fret...) - theWOLFchild 18:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removed 'Chernobyl Diaries'[edit]

I must wonder what the nature is of whatever form of mental handicap must be suffered by whomever added 'Chernobyl Diaries' to this list. 'Chernobyl Diaries' is about a group of tourists visiting the Ukrainian town of Pripyat which was abandoned after the 1986 Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant disaster; they get stranded there and unfortunate things happen to them. It has absolutely nothing to do with nuclear warfare, the apocalypse, the end of the world, global cataclysm, World War 3, massive loss of life, or nuclear weapons in general. Just because the movie may have had a small metal sign in it depicting the radiation symbol does not warrant its presence on this list. Please, if your IQ could be the sum of a tennis score, do not edit Wikipedia. Thank you. Jade Phoenix Pence (talk) 20:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)Jade Phoenix Pence[reply]

splatoon[edit]

I decided to add Splatoon onto this list, as its events are caused by a nuclear strike on antarctica during world war five.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Runningcrabburps (talk • contribs) 21:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mad Max 2/The Road Warrior not post-nuclear[edit]

George Miller himself stated so.[9] Spartan198 (talk) 13:33, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of nuclear holocaust music[edit]

The Music section has been removed on the grounds that "Music is not fiction". Factually I agree, but I think the section itself is worthwhile to have. So I am wondering what's the best strategy. Should we spin the list out? I think the topic of nuclear holocaust/atomic war in music is notable/would fullfill WP:LISTN. But would it be beneficial to have that separate? Or should we restore the section and possibly change the title to Nuclear holocaust in popular culture or something like that? To very clear, however, I would not want an namechange to be an argument that this would the not fullfill WP:LISTN for not having secondary sources discussing nuclear holocaust in popular culture, after it was established that secondary sources are sufficient to establish notability for ...in fiction.
Now why I think nuclear holocaust/atomic war in music is notable:

Who says it isn't fiction? Just because there are musical notes attached to the prose anything describing WWIII for example isn't fact. Miami 2017, currently not on the list, is a good example where Billy Joel describes his creation as science fiction. MartinezMD (talk) 21:52, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the music list is notable in its ow right, I think spinning off to its own article is best. 22:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC) Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My grasp of English fails me to have a clear opinion on this. So asking for input from others from the deletion discussion: @Jamezofchez, Piotrus, TompaDompa, Jclemens, Xx236, Slatersteven, Dream Focus, and TimothyBlue:. Daranios (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MUsic of course is a form of fiction. Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a mainstream solidly sourced point of view? Music is art. Some music has fictional lyrics of course. Some music tells stories. But even then, sources would tend to talk of "telling a tale through music", in which case the tale (a story) is the fiction and music is the medium. I don't think it is usual to categorise music as fiction though. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Films and books are also art. Slatersteven (talk) 18:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which is irrelevant and does not answer the question. Incidentally, in the deletion discussion you stated there are things on this page that should be removed. What things were you talking about? Also, if all editors who participated in the AfD are to be pinged in, not sure why Dronebogus was omitted. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:47, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, @Dronebogus and Sirfurboy: my bad about the incomplete ping. Daranios (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I personally voted for deletion and still think this is not a good article. An article on nuclear war and atomic weaponry in culture, using scholarly and popular analysis rather than listcruft, would be great. But “popular culture” is a dirty word on Wikipedia that means “fancruft”. Dronebogus (talk) 01:44, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Things that are not about nuclear holocaust (such as single bombs). Slatersteven (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some music is fiction, as in, it tells a story through lyrics. Side note: I will write an article on fictional music soon, I already have a draft on Polish Wikipedia I need to translate and expand a bit.
As for the list of nh music, I have no opinion other than - if it meets LISTN (if there are such lists out there that we would base our list on), and it would be referenced, I am not opposed to it. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about this, I guess in more or less all cases it would be the lyrics telling us that a specific piece of music has a nuclear holocaust theme, which would be the fiction part within the piece of music. Anyways, as long as it is not clearly confusing to an English speaker to list pieces of music in an article named "... fiction", I think it is more beneficial to have the music together with the rest rather than as a separate article. Daranios (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your revert of the material back in is a reversal of WP:ONUS which says disputed content should remain out until consensus is reached. No one has provided any sources here to establish why songs might be counted as fiction nor why these meet WP:LISTN. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:43, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have that backwards. The onus is on you. This is BRD. See also Musical fiction. MartinezMD (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And here are two reliable sources discussing science fiction in music https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/magic-carpet-rides-rock-music-and-the-fantastic/ and https://www.npr.org/2010/02/09/122997440/science-fiction-music-monsters-aliens-in-filk MartinezMD (talk) 22:46, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also did provide five sources above with regard to WP:LISTN. Daranios (talk) 06:41, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have that backwards. WP:ONUS says: The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. This is policy. WP:BRD is an essay for an optional process that encourages bold editing. We were already talking, so the revert is a reversal of WP:ONUS. As for your links, these do not demonstrate that music is considered fiction, which is what I asked above (Is that [Music is fiction] a mainstream solidly sourced point of view?. Neither do they show that a treatment of fiction as a collection usually includes music. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:11, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have much to add here besides stating what I think is very obvious: Songs CAN be fiction. Doctorhawkes (talk) 09:25, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think only one person here thinks that music can't have fiction, and consensus does not require unanimity "Consensus on Wikipedia does not require unanimity (which is ideal but rarely achievable), nor is it the result of a vote." MartinezMD (talk) 12:14, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You will probably be familiar with the term "equivocation", where a word is used with multiple senses in a single logical argument. I believe that is perhaps what is unintentionally going on here when people are saying songs CAN be fiction and similar. So let's be clear on definitions, because something very unobvious is going on here. So here are some points:
  1. The title of this page is "List of nuclear holocaust fiction". Not "art", nor "literature" but "fiction". That is what this list purports to be. So fiction is what we need to define.
  2. The Oxford English Dictionary gives this definition for fiction:

    The species of literature which is concerned with the narration of imaginary events and the portraiture of imaginary characters; fictitious composition. Now usually, prose novels and stories collectively; the composition of works of this class.

    This, I believe, is self evidently what is meant by the term fiction. Oxford Languages describes it thus:

    literature in the form of prose that describes imaginary events and people.

    This is the definition that is cited at the head of our Fiction article. Note that by this definition "fiction" is written in prose.
  3. But someone will object that the OED and other authorities know several other definitions of fiction. In particular, definition 2 of the Oxford Languages definition is:

    Something that is invented or untrue.

    Songs can describe imaginary events, and these are clearly fictions. But, and this is very important, we are now applying a second definition of fiction to supplement the first, and this is the very definition of equivocation.
Now having made those points, what to do here? Well one of the reasons this article is a bit pants, tbh, is that it has poorly defined inclusion criteria. It is a list of fiction based on the presumption that a genre of prose fiction is notable for a list, being based on such collections being in existence, but then it adds in other things that are not established, making the list indiscriminate. A "consensus" that fiction does not mean prose narrative but anything that is untrue or imaginary, applied to list articles, is also potentially far reaching. But how to fix it? I see four options, these being cleanup, RM, RFC or LISTN:
  1. We just remove everything that is not prose fiction.
  2. RM: Some editors here clearly want this article to be about prose fiction, verse, games films and television. It is well established that all of these are arts (per discussion above), and literature generally includes all kinds of verse where fiction does not (although literature would not include games). So one possibility is to launch a move discussion to rename this page to "List of nuclear holocaust in literature" or "List of nuclear holocaust in the arts". That would at least deal with the equivocation (but might stumble on being overly broad, and not meeting WP:LISTN.
  3. RFC: If you wish to persist with a view that a list of fiction should also include verse, music and various other things, then an RFC is required. However, a simple yes/no to the question of "should a list of fiction on a subject also include songs [etc.]" (or similar) should probably be supplemented with a third option "(only) if sources on the topic are shown to do so", and it is my belief that a majority of Wikipedia editors would go for that option, because that is what we do here. Thus:
  4. Per the question I have asked before, and which has not been addressed yet: we could probably assume the RFC result and save ourselves a month if we just found sources that describe a list of nuclear holocaust fiction, that include music and the other inclusions that are not prose fiction. If such lists exist in reliable secondary sources, independent of the subject, you demonstrate notability for the collection per WP:LISTN. If no such sources exist, I would commend option 1 above and simply look at creating separate lists for what you remove, per my comment of 10 May.
Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:50, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think if you're going to maintain your position you'll need an RFC. This is a list of nuclear holocaust fiction, not list of nuclear holocaust literature. There's the difference for me. MartinezMD (talk) 18:35, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First, I find this question of semantics much less important than dealing with the content, therefore prefering to discuss the nomenclature first before removing anything. Secondly I am not fundamentally opposed to renaming this to List of nuclear holocaust in the arts or the not-so-well respected but in my view appropriate List of nuclear holocaust in popular culture, if that makes things more consistent. Thirdly, our Fiction article starts out with a much broader definition than the Oxford Dictionary: "Fiction is any creative work, chiefly any narrative work, portraying individuals, events, or places that are imaginary, or in ways that are imaginary." That would allow for our case of music with lyrics. So is that article wrong? Daranios (talk) 19:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, Wikipedia is never a reliable source for Wikipedia. I was referring to the first cited reference: [1] - Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:23, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia is never a reliable source for Wikipedia": For sure. However, the broader definition seems to reflect the understanding of the term by the majority here. On the other hand it does not seem to be very well sourced. I don't, however, get access to sources 2 and 3 there. Would be interesting what they provide. And if the Fiction article would surprisingly need to be corrected then. Daranios (talk) 19:35, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have access to source 3 either, but source 2 isn't going to help much. That passage states, inter alia, games scholar Espen Aarseth claims that some elements of videogames are not fictional, but present virtual or simulated items (Aarseth 2005). The apparent fictive aspects of Oblivion referred to above may be virtual rather than fictional. and the author makes a case that video games may be fictions, but saying There are a number of potential variations or confusions in the thesis that videogames are fictions. This is the point I have made above regarding equivocation, and the resolution is the same. What is needed for this list to remain as it is is: reliable secondary sources, independent of the subject, that treat the subject as a group. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:17, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the deletion discussion, arguments to keep this list were predicated on treatment of the subject as a list based on the 8 sources that satisfied WP:NLIST by treating the subject as a group. Examining each of these we have:

This book, available in open library, is actually excellent. It has a massive 200+ page bibliography on nuclear holocausts and atomic war fiction. The bibliography, however, begins with this definition:

The following bibliography is intended as a list of and commentary on novels, short stories, and plays written between 1895 and 1984 which specifically depict nuclear war and its aftermath.

So no music nor verse.
The title of this work is nuclear war in literature and does not restrict itself to fiction. It does not discuss music but it does discuss poetry in one chapter (The End of Art, page 85). If the article page title were changed, this could be used per WP:LISTN to include verse.
The discussion on these pages references books and films. There is no mention of music nor verse.
Works included are categorised as Books, Films and Television Series.
This bibliography has 54 prose works on the subject and 16 related prose works. These are all works of fiction. No music, poetry nor verse is included, with the single exception of item 32: Ankvab, Vladimir. Abryskil. Moscow: Molodaia gvardiia, 1972. 150pp. Excerpts published earlier in Tekhnika-Molodezhi, 1965: no. 3, p.18.-A mixture of fantasy and SF told in verse narrative. This is not music though. It is fiction written in verse.
Self evidently restricts itself to films. Does not even clearly restrict itself to fiction.
I don't have institutional access to this one, but I note from the abstract that it says books with realistic views of both war and peace are still rare, so this again appears to restrict itself to books.

Summary No source used to demonstrate notability for this collection includes music in the collection. No source restricting itself to fiction includes anything but prose fiction, in line with the dictionary definition of fiction as quoted above. Inclusion of music in this list is therefore WP:OR. Either this page is about more than fiction as a collection, or else the music should be moved to a page where it may be appropriately treated. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:57, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sirfurboy: Thanks for looking into this in detail! While I have my own caveats about OR/LISTN/renaming questions, that's not very relevant given that we have an obvious solution: Let's split the music part off then as a related stand-alone list notable in its own right. Are there objections? Daranios (talk) 10:52, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. We already had an article for songs about nuclear war, I discovered. I merged all entries on this page that were not already in that list, and removed the songs from this page. The list is at List of songs about nuclear war should anyone want to improve it further. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
that works for me too. thanks. MartinezMD (talk) 12:34, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "fiction". Lexico. Oxford University Press. 2019. Archived from the original on 21 August 2019.

A Nuclear holocaust story isn't post-apocalyptic fiction[edit]

Most of these films don't meet the criteria. A nuclear holocaust is a set of events which are an apocalypse. Post-apocalyptic fiction, by definition, takes place after those events. Whether or not it was a nuclear apocalypse or caused by a pandemic or asteroid or something else does not make a difference in terms of it's being after the fact.


A film about the actual Holocaust (The Shoah) is not the same as the aftermath for those persecuted who escaped execution or punishing of the guilty. Kapo (1960) is a fiction film about the Holocaust itself but Sophie's Choice (1985) and The Debt (2007 & 2010) are fiction about the aftermath.


Similarly, The Day After is fiction about a nuclear holocaust. So are Threads and On the Beach. I can't see any reasonable person saying that Planet of the Apes or Mad Max: Thunder Road are about a nuclear armaggedon. They take place after one, but that is merely the setting, not the subject.

SalClements (talk) 21:28, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SalClements: The description of the scope in the first sentence includes fiction set after a nuclear holocaust, and has done so from almost the beginning of the article. I don't want to say that that has to stay like this for certain, but any change should be based on a broad consensus. Daranios (talk) 10:03, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The purpose of the list was made clear from early on. Will be reverting Alas, Babylon. MartinezMD (talk) 20:43, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you're talking about with Babylon SalClements (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SalClements: You had removed the entry for Alas, Babylon without commentary, and a short time later raised the distinction here. So the obvious thought is that you had removed Babylon because you considered it post-apocalyptic rather than nuclear holocaust fiction, even if there actually might have been a different reason. Daranios (talk) 13:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see what happened. I removed an entry for Alas Babylon because it was incorrectly double listed not based on the distinction I am arguing ought to be recognized. I personally think that the distinction is important given the title of the article, but I wasn't going to make edits based on that distinction unless there was support for doing so. SalClements (talk) 09:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as far as the topic is concerned, I'm just very disappointed. I've been putting together a project about the depiction of nuclear war in fiction and when I saw this list I thought, "This is will be perfect," because I reasonably assumed nuclear holocaust means experiencing the tremendous loss of life and suffering resulting from a major nuclear exchange. However, the vast majority of items barely have anything to do with actual nuclear war.


They're post-apocalypse sci-fi/fantasy, which is a separate genre, in which there happens to be an explanation that the apocalypse was nuclear war. That doesn't really affect the story and the actual destruction of civilization as it results from nuclear war isn't portrayed. Those stories could have an apocalypse from a viral pandemic or germ warfare or meteor strike and it wouldn't alter the narrative at all. It wasn't as helpful for research as it might have been.


I'd like to make a proposal and you can tell me if it's too disruptive: what if the fiction were organized by genre so that genuine nuclear holocaust stories and post-apocalypse stories with a nuclear war based apocalypse are clearly delineated from one another. In my opinion that would be a useful improvement. SalClements (talk) 23:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SalClements and MartinezMD: I think such an internal separation would be a good idea with regard to clarity/differing user interests, but it would also be a lot of work to check all works here. Interestingly, the parent List of apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction is a mix as well. Interestingly also, the relation of our list to that more general one has already been discussed in 2007, then with the result of keeping them separate. In the bigger picture I wonder if having one List of apocalyptic fiction and one List of post-apocalyptic fiction wouldn't be the best solution. One could check out the stance of the relevant Nuclear holocausts: Atomic war in fiction, 1895-1984 on this point. All of that, however, is beyond my energy to contribute aside from moral support. Daranios (talk) 13:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Subdividing the topic would certainly give more specific identity to the included works, but then that creates its own difficulty. How would we list a work that includes both categories (eg nuclear brinksmanship followed by a post-holocaust story such as Alas, Babylon)? MartinezMD (talk) 20:23, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say most apocalypse stories deal to certain degree with the aftermath. Also, the genre of postapocalyptic fiction is, I believe, much broader. So I would include works containing both under nuclear holocaust fiction, except if the focus very clearly is on the post-apocalypse side. Daranios (talk) 11:19, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't exclude Alas, Babylon. I'd keep it in the nuclear holocaust category because the story actually shows people experiencing the destruction of society. My view is that the works that ought to be excluded from that category are the ones where the fall of civilization from the nuclear war is not actually an event depicted within the story, but is merely an explanation for why the story is set in a world where there's no civilization we'd recognize. SalClements (talk) 12:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be a really good idea. I'm not personally interested in sorting through all of that though. (It goes back to 1268 AD for pity's sake!) However, I think it's a useful way to categorize because the combination seems to conflate distinct categories. Post-apocalyptic fiction is defined by the setting. It's typically been used to tell stories that provide social commentary by describing a culture that has become dystopian. That's a different genre from stories that are defined by the plot/premise of experiencing an event that causes the downfall of civilization. Traditionally those have been written as cautionary tales intended to motivate people to get involved in a campaign regarding whatever it is that causes the fictional disaster.
I do like how that other list is organized into a table that can change sequence based on categories. Do you know where I could find instructions about how to make that kind of table? SalClements (talk) 12:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SalClements: The uneven formatting was already critizised in the deletion discussion, having a sortable table would be great. There exists a help page on sortable tables here. One can of course always try to adapt the table from over there, but no idea how complicated that is in this case. Daranios (talk) 15:36, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Fourth Protocol (film)[edit]

Please put The Fourth Protocol (film) into the list. Thanks. 80.62.116.140 (talk) 01:09, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_nuclear_holocaust_fiction&oldid=1208275219"