Talk:List of steampunk works

Time for a cull

I think it is high time for the active, experienced editors to make a cull of this article. In the last two months, a great many additions have been made in the film, tv, and video game sections that probably do not pass muster. Let's make a concerted effort to discuss here which ones we think do not make the grade, and be more vigilant in seeing they do not get readded. Any thoughts? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

As long as that cull doesn't assume that all Steampunk is set in the Victorian era, then yes it is time. But I fear that too many elitists have hijacked the genre and decided that Steampunk is solely 1800's based and nothing else.magnius (talk) 01:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

A problem here is that some people are trying to redefine steampunk as a "lifestyle" (Like "Goth"), and that necessitates a very broad definition. It also makes any discussion of what is or is not "Steampunk" a question of personal preference with a high possibility of offense.

So you wind up with people just including any film, book, or music that they happen to like. Usually anything with even remotely retro-future aspects to it. (Or anything that's remotely Victorian.)

The upshot is that you get a large number of people who will argue passionately that not only is "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow", or "Bioshock" steampunk, but that we don't have the right to question that declaration.

I guess my point is that it'll be an uphill battle. This list will perpetually degrade with well-meaning editors adding (especially) films and movies more or less at random. APL (talk) 14:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed - the key is "steam," too many people seem to assume that Victorian elements make something Steampunk.

Although I a agree that people will always try and argue the toss over what is and isn't Steampunk one easy way to check is to look over the article in question. As I've said before (here and elsewhere) this article isn't where things get assigned to Steampunk, this should be done in the article. If the article makes no mention of Steampunk (or even "steam") then adding the article to this list is opinion and original research. Clearly this might lead to some cobbling Steampunk onto an article but that should be obvious. If it says something is Steampunk which doesn't seem to be but it has been in a stable article for a while then it is best to flag the problem on their talk page and see how it resolves itself. So we don't have to come up with a definition and apply it here - the onus is on those adding the item to make sure the article supports this claim. (Emperor (talk) 18:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC))

Crimson Skies or Crimson Skies High Road to Revenge

Idk but i think this might be a bit of steampunk, maybe diesel punk

Moby games

The Moby games reference, which is used several times in this list, does not seem appropriate or notable enough to me. The definition for steampunk which they use on that page is far too vague:

Possibly the easiest definition of steampunk is: Modern technology as depicted using an earlier form of technology. Typically this includes a lot of cranks, gears and clockwork mechanisms, but might also feature basic electricity gathered from hydroelectric, geothermal or other sources.

With this as their definition, a great many games might be deemed appropriate with which we would disagree. I would never hold myself up as an expert on video games---quite the contrary, in fact!---but, it seems to me that we need a better source than this if a game is going to be included in this list. ---[[User:RepublicanJacobite|RepublicanJacobite]][[User talk:RepublicanJacobite|The'FortyFive']] (talk) 16:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Isn't Moby user-generated? There is an "add content" button there. Seems like an unreliable source to me. I'm removing it for now (but not removing the entries that use it).Yobmod (talk) 13:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Cull

As per the weak consensus above, I have purged the list of all item that don't have an article that describes them as

• "Steampunk"
• "Clockpunk"
• "Gaslamp romance" (or similar)
• Modern works Inspired by Jules Verne, H.G. Wells, or Mary Shelley.
• Modern works described as "Victorian Science Fiction"
• Fantastic, non-historical steam power.

-or-

• A cite in this article, no matter how weak.

To avoid being ridiculous, I also made exceptions for works with "steam" or "steampunk" in the actual title.

I considered also making an exception for works that include or parody Tesla, (Like 'The Prestige', but couldn't think of how to justify that.)

I don't think people will like the result. In fact, I'm not even sure I like it. I'm sure that some worthy books got the axe. But I decided to be WP:Bold and give it a try and see what people think.

If people think this is too drastic, I won't be insulted at all if it gets reverted.

APL (talk) 01:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S. : I have also removed Dr Steel from the music section because its reference is a broken link. APL (talk) 01:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

It is pretty deep and includes things I know are Steampunk but it is not about what I know it is what can be proved and adding items back in will require some extra work here or on the relevant article. The one I'd want to demonstrate Steampunk for is Anubis Gates, which seems to have an important part in the history of the development of the Steampunk concept/term but it would need better references - I'll see what the main article (and a bit of Googling) can turn up.

Ones I'd flag as possible causes for concern is the original Dr Who series - it has been a while since I watched either (and one tries not to remember Sylvester McCoy's run as the Doctor) but I can't recall anything that would justify their inclusion other than a Victorian setting. The two from the new series seem OK - the first has clockwork robots and the second has a giant steam-powered Cyberman stomping through London but I can't put my finger on anything similar for the other two. (Emperor (talk) 15:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC))

A Trip to the Moon (1902)

I searched for sources calling this steampunk, and couldn't find any at all. It looks like standard science fiction to me - there is no anachronistic steam power, there is a science fictional speculation on future technology. I added a citation tag for now, as it's removal was reverted. Can anyone provide a citation, or is it purely original research? I notice that it's article has attained GA status with no mention of Steampunk at all, so any citation found would be good to see there too. Unless the film is not in this genre at all....Yobmod (talk) 15:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The question is what your (as you WP:OWN this category) definition of steampunk is? Is Jules Verne steampunk, even though its anachronism is forward-looking rather than backward. Now the usual literal statement of steampunk will literally rule this out, yet the community consensus (outside the trivia of wikipedia, which prefers their google blinkers to brass goggles) happily accepts Verne & Wells as part of the canon. Most of those interested in the community find this contradiction trite, or at least have the wit to see beyond it. Melies' film is a clear derivative of Verne, and has similar rights to inclusion in the canon.

As to references, then Vogel (1974). Film as a Subversive Art. is usually an excellent reference here, although it's itself too old to use the literal term "steampunk" (good book though, and now there's a reprint it's affordable). I imagine you'll cheerfully delete away, secure in your narrow view of rote recitation of policy and ignoring how ridiculous this makes your changes look. Ho Hum. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

"Now the usual literal statement of steampunk will literally rule this out," If this is true, Then it should be removed. WP is not a feel-good society for bloggers. WP is an Encyclopedia filled only with verifiable facts.

If a fact is literally false, but a lot of people prefer to believe it is true, then it is still false and should not be presented as true in an encyclopedia.

When I culled the list before, I left things that were modern works inspired by Jules Verne, as that view is backed up by the Steampunk article itself. I'm not sure if 1903 counts as "modern", though. (The man himself was still alive!) From a 1903 perspective, I guess you would just call it "Science Fiction". APL (talk) 16:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You've failed to understand my statement entirely. 8-( Cites for Melies are really pretty uninteresting - it either is steampunk or isn't steampunk, and this depends on the narrowness of your view of steampunk rather than whether one trivial "encyclopedia" page is referenced or not. Now it's a very good question whether the steampunk archetypes (Verne, Wells et al) are part of it, or merely influences upon it, but that's not swayed by the very simplest phrasing of a pat definition being that which excludes them. That merely means it's a poor definition, or a foolish attitude to place an over-precise interpretation on an imprecise statement. It's a good faith question though, and one worthy of many a bottle in the snug of the Engineer's Guild. Still not an encyclopedic question though (wikipedia by formal policy does not get to define stuff, which is where Domboy, Trekphiler & friends go wrong). In an encylopedic context such as this, the best you can hope for is to round up these pre-neeologism sources, describe them but to list them separately as proto-steampunk.

As to referencing Melies, then that's easy from any history of early film (this is the earliest sf film we're talking about, not anything obscure, and anyone familiar with the history of either film, sf or sf films will know it well). However you won't find it termed "steampunk", simply as that's a recent neologism. As I suggested, Vogel's "Subversive Art Form" is worth the read. Taking the view "Anything with a mention in Matrix online is sacrosanct, anything missing from that one trivial source is heresy" is ridiculous, and looks it. Almost as much so as, "I've made more edits to this article than you have, therefore my contributions are more reliable". Andy Dingley (talk) 17:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

What contributions? All you do is argue, but never improve the list with citation, which is a core part of wikipedia. I've brought a number of SF-related lists up to featured list status, and arguing at featured list review that we don't need citations will get us nowhere. Note that while you wrote the last post, i added citations to 3 Verne/Welles based films being precursors, and brought over the citation i had provided at Steampunk about Verne/Welles being inspirations for the genre. I didn't say i made more eidts, i said a added more citations, which is in response to your accusations that i am only interested in deleting material and preventing others from adding examples.Yobmod (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Matrix online has an article that specifically says Verne and Welles are not Steampunk, but are precursors. (This is an official publication of the British Science Fiction Association, so they are the nearest we are likely to get to "experts") I don't see what WP:OWN has got to do with anything - i asked for citations. I'm guessing this response means there are none? I might point out, that for all your complaining, i have added more citations to Steampunk, List of steampunk works, List of cyberpunk works, Cyberpunk derivatives and Biopunk than you have or ever will. My definition is immaterial, as it is reliable sources we need, not oringinal research from me or anyone. But, Voyage to the moon has no steam, it uses rocket ships to fly to the moon: It is quite clearly just science fiction of it's day.Yobmod (talk) 16:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Btw APL, i thought our Steampunk article stated something similar in terms of Verne/WElles etc. They are certainly precursors and inspirations for the genre, and should be mentioned. At least that was what it said when i added the citations there, many months ago. Maybe this list needs another section for precursors in film - the Matrix online article mentions specific authors and works, although all are based on books, so maybe a precursors section to cover all media up to the coining of the term? That how we did it in the List of cyberpunk works. Nice work on the previous cull - i started something similar in the cat. tree, almost none of them had cites so far, except those i addedYobmod (talk) 17:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this list should have a "Precursors to Steampunk" section. If could contain works by Verne and other works that would have been considered simply futurist sci-fi when they were made, but are retro-future by modern standards. I'm all in favor of that if we can define it better and narrow it to steampunk specifically. (What I just said would apply equally well to the original Star Trek series.) Perhaps that would be an acceptable compromise. It would still need to be supported by external sources, or at least the articles for the listed items, so I'm not sure how well it would work. Worth a try, though. APL (talk) 18:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I created a precursors section, with citad examples of which authors are influences, and some of their works that are specifically mentioned as being important in film. I didn't list works by those authors that don't have a cite of their own, as this would get very long (I have the Encyc of Fantasy to hand, and will add the numerous other authors it mentions as precursors, including prolific writers like Dickens), nor for remakes of films (ie i don't think the latest terrible Time Machine film was Steampunk at all, even if earlier versions are).Yobmod (talk) 08:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Doctor Steel

I have added Doctor Steel again, I have no association with the band, I am not some street teamer or anyone attempting 'viral marketing'. But surely MTV is a reliable enough source of reference for Doctor Steel to be included? I am not bothered one way or the other (I don't like his music), but there seems to be a strange assumption that everyone who adds it is a viral marketer, even when they include a valid enough looking reference. If you can explain to me why MTV is not reliable enough then fair enough. magnius (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

MTV is fine for pop culture, imo. We use the same ref at the Steampunk article - i think it was removed here cos the link somehow got broken. Good job in fixing/replacing!Yobmod (talk) 08:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Lit subheadings and table

I want to see if there is any consensus / opposition to me starting to convert the list into table format, with columns for title, author, year, notes, reference. This makes it easier to see which are cited (I've now cited more than half, so the ref tags get unwieldy), and would make the list sortable by date and author, which would show both development of the genre, and which are important authors).

This would remove the setting sub-heading, which i don't think are that helpful. Could mention setting in the notes, but many i havn't read, so someone else would have to do that.

Also, once the table is in place, and that remai uncited i will start to tag, then remove. This will be a particular problem for the comics (I only read Xmen and Sandman) and TV (i don'T have one) so if editors are attached to particular titles being here, citation should start being added ASAP. The other sections Magnius and I already started citing.Yobmod (talk) 09:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Eg: Move to article

These are the novel still left uncited. I moved them here rather than formatting for the table, in case there are no sources.Yobmod (talk) 10:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Gaslight romance

As wikipedia regards GR as a defunct neologism and a subtype of Steampunk, are we using references to GR as acceptable here? Even when the source say "this is gaslight romance, not Steampunk" (which Clute does sometimes). I've used one such so far.

Also for references saying "Steampunk elements". The Prestige (book not film) can be cited as having a Steampunk subplot - is that sufficient?Yobmod (talk) 10:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

deus ex 3

do you think deus ex 3 should be added to games section? it looks VERY steampunk-ish.. --90.178.180.22 (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)