Jump to content

Talk:First contact (science fiction)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ships&Space (talk | contribs) at 01:06, 14 May 2024 (→Origin of the term: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

First contact (anthropology)

This article should really be merged with the aforementioned article. They share the same meaning, so why should it matter that the "science fiction" article involves extra-terrestrials? Just because interspecies first contact hasn't happened yet (publicly), doesn't classify it as science fiction.

I'm not so sure. First, anthropologists and science fiction enthusiasts will both come to a "first contact" article with different expectations, and may leave if they are not confident that their expectations will be met. For example, in a combined page which should come first, the anthropological or the science fiction aspects? Second, science fiction occasionally raises issues which have not featured in anthropology, e.g.: how a less advanced race should handle first contact (e.g. Brin's "Uplift" series; Baxter's Xeelee sequence); the problems of communication between races with different hard-wired behaviours (including but not limited to hard-coded linguistics - Steven Pinker's non-fiction book "The Language Instinct" makes a strong case for hard-coding of basic grammar in humans).Philcha 20:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is strange; why is there no mention of Murray Leinster's story "First Contact" here? Isn't that the story from which the term comes? - Robin

Murray Leinster's heirs thought so, and I'll add mention of the story to the article.Philcha 20:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Banks

Can't beleive there was no reference to Banks here apart from the "Outside Context Problem" link so added mention of The Culture's Contact section where it seems appropriate. Still far too much bloody Star Trek here though. --JamesTheNumberless 14:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second Contact

> Mike Resnick (1991). Second Contact. Legend. ISBN 0-09-974150-4. — Resnick explores the theme of humans recovering from a disastrous first contact.

I was curious, so looked up the details of this book. The several synopses says that a captain is on trial for killing two crewmembers because he thought that they were aliens, and the plea is temporary insanity. This does not sound like a situation in which first contact has occurred, and there is no explicit mention of actual aliens, unless it's all part of a surprise ending. If someone has access to this book, please confirm that this is not spam or mistaken identity. If the link is valid, I'd suggest either embedding a comment or updating the description to reconcile with the synopses. --Scott McNay 23:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't understand your question. From the quote above, it would simply appear that the book is about xenophobia after "a disastrous first contact". MrZaiustalk 04:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First contact (science)?

I was looking at this article thinking it might cover the various issues that should be considered in an actual first contact, as a serious discussion; there was a bit in this article, but more as a side issue (and in the contect of SF) than the main subject. Is there such an article like this? There's no shortage of material in science fiction on the subject, and I'm sure that there's plenty of serious articles on the subject also. --Scott McNay 23:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Here's a decent starting point, found from just googling +seti +"first contact" - http://www.setileague.org/askdr/whatnext.htm MrZaiustalk 04:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, a better place for truly detailed discussion of plans by SETI et al for first contact would be first contact (anthropology). Anthropology is a science, and is the science that will, if we're ruled by competent technocrats ;), be calling the shots. MrZaiustalk 20:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restructure by how the first contact theme is handled?

I find the current article a bit of a laundry list, for example "There have been entire series devoted to this theme. One classic series is the 'interstellar trader' series by Andre Norton. A more modern treatment, using radio rather than spaceships, is Contact by Carl Sagan." Would it be better to divide the article by aspects of the "first contact" theme. For example: trust versus caution (Murray Leinster's First Contact; Niven and Pournelle's The Mote in God's Eye); danger of misunderstandings (Earth-Minbari War in Babylon 5; Human-Bugger war in Ender's Game; Human-Tauran war in The Forever War); treatment of less advanced races (Star Trek's Prime Directive; the activities of Contact in Banks' Culture stories); dangers of contact with more advanced races (Brin's Uplift stories, Baxter's Xeelee Sequence); ultra-hostile aliens (Wells' The War of the Worlds; the Alien movies; the movie Independence Day; Fred Saberhagen's " Berserker" stories) and benevolent aliens (ET; Octavia Butler's Xenogenesis stories); individual attitudes to aliens which are different from that of the rest of a society (ET; several stories in Baxter's Xeelee Sequence); face-to-face contact versus interstellar radio contact (e.g. Sagan's contact; the TV series A for Andromeda); whether the story focuses on the process of first contact (Leinster's First Contact) or on the consequences (Brin's Uplift stories; Babylon 5; most of Baxter's Xeelee Sequence); how some stories and movies reflect contemporary political attitudes (e.g. Cold War paranoia in the 1950s and early 1960s);etc. I realise that many of these stories cover more than one aspect and I'm still trying to think of a way to deal with that.Philcha 21:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sentient / sapient / highly-intelligent

The definition says, "... any sentient race's first encounter with another one." I'm not sure about "sentient" here, because much of the literature, including Wikipedia, defines sentience in terms of emotional awareness and sapience in terms of problem-solving ability. Both in psychology and and in science fiction using either term alone makes unjustified assumptions (e.g. in Brin's Uplift stories the Tandu and Jophur are undoubtedly sapient but minimally sentient). I'd prefer to avoid that debate by re-wording to "highly-intelligent". I know "highly-intelligent" is vague and in particular does not imply human-level intelligence, but in some science fiction the issue is how to treat species which have the potential for high technology but have not yet evolved to that point (it's one of the drivers for Brin's Uplift stories).Philcha 22:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This issue right here is why I think Blindsight (Watts novel) from 2006 should be mentioned in the list - it explores the problem in some depth (and is generally regarded as a milestone First Contact novel anyways). Frabartolo Ringril (talk) 17:06, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did anthropology get there first?

The intro to First contact (science fiction) says "... by adapting the anthropological topic of first contact to extraterrestrial cultures," which to me implies that that there was already a significant body of knowledge in anthropology before first contact featured in science fiction. But: First contact (anthropology) is little more than a stub and has few outgoing links (one of which is First contact (science fiction)); I've googled for "first contact anthropology" aand got nothing significant (mainly copies of First contact (anthropology)); looking through Wikipedia suggests that anthropology only got going in the last quarter of the 19th century (e.g. James Frazer's work in the 1870s), while H G Wells wrote some "first contact" stories in the mid-1890s. This suggests to me that anthropology did not have clear priority in the topic of first contact. So I suggest it would be better to list first the areas of overlap between science fiction and anthropology (mainly socio-cultural and linguistic) and then those which appear only in science fiction (some magnify the topics in the overlap because the situation involves different species; other are unique to sf, e.g. how to treat species which have not yet evolved to human-level intelligence, how to build trust without exposing one's species to a first strike, etc.)Philcha 11:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I would not be surprised if, as is also the case in SF (i.e. earliest stories that include the theme do not include the now common phrase), in anthropology the concept existed but did not go by the name of "first contact" before a certain point. Certainly there were "first contacts" with natives of the many, many places Europeans explored and settled (or attempted to settle, or conquer as the case may be), even though they probably did not initially refer to it as "first contact" (especially without pronouns, heh), and it may not have been considered part of anthropology so much as a part of more general exploration or something. In any case though, just because it's not easy to find on the internet through Google does not mean it does not exist. The WWW has only been around for about 12 years, you know. :P If you're truly curious on the subject, why not contact members of anthropology departments in universities? That might actually be easier. 4.235.6.139 19:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed section

While Sethie enjoyed the writing in this section, the whole section seems like one editors thoughts about first contact scenarios, as opposed to citing sources or reporting what WP:RS sources have to say.Sethie 07:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other Types Of First Contact

I remember reading this article months ago and thought it was a decent article. As I am currently reading the novel Anathem by Neal Stephenson I came to remember this article and see if it had mentions of similar ideas. This entire article is about first contacts with beings from other planets, but what about first contacts with beings from other universes (alternate cosmos). I came to look here and there's nothing of the sort, but where would something like this be? I see this as a similar story idea just slightly different. Should this idea be investigated further as another paragraph could be added to simply state that the idea of first contacts aren't limited to alien races. ... There already is a fairly useless paragraph in this article that seems to serve no purpose other than to advertise novels by Asimov and Bujold. 99.240.191.134 (talk) 03:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Best"

Neither the author nor the story is listed in the Internet Speculative Fiction Database, and this summary adds nothing to the article that I can see, so I deleted it. Naturally it was quickly restored, by the one who added it (and who also added it to Alien invasion).

How about publication data for the story, at least? —Tamfang (talk) 08:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced laundry list

Despite this concern voiced here many years ago, the article continues to grow as laundry list cum original research. Therefore I am about to turn "Examples" into "List of First Contact stories", stripping it from any unreferenced comment . Staszek Lem (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overhauling the article

I've decided to overhaul the article from the top, as it has many problems. Primarily, this means completely rewriting the sections that currently exist and adding new sections. Anyone interested in the topic should add comments in this thread. Comments and recommendations from Wikipedians from non-Western countries are particularly welcome, as I am unlikely to be able to easily find discussions and interpretations of first contact in non-English sources. Ships & Space(Edits) 00:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this page needs some beating. I assume you have some sketch in your head already. My a handful of ten-cent pieces.

  • Assuming you are going to write a thorough article, I would suggest us to split this one in two right away, not to drag the burden around: "First contact (science fiction)" and "List of first contact stories"
  • From the very beginning the article must be thoroughly footnoted to scholarly sources, so that we can easily cut off well-meaning fandom.
  • This article subject must be stories about "first contact" per se, i.e., an attempt of two civilizations to understand each other (or one another). I have in mind to cut off two major tropes:
    • the whole huge space opera/space invaders/star wars pulp fiction, where more often than not the numerous opponents see each other for the first time, but which are not about contact at all, but kicking each other's ass. Unless the war is a result of miscommunication rather than inherently evil intentions of bugs or reptiloids or whoever other conquest.
    • The second trope is accidental travel, where in most cases the stories are just adventure/robinsonade, etc., and "contact" is not their subject at all, despite being "the first".
    • I understand there may be difficult to draw the line, but as usual, if a scholarly source says it is "first contact". So be it.
    • And of course, the first contact must be really the first aliens for Earthlings, not yet another encounter in the space opera populated by numerous civilizations
  • It is tempting to throw in a bunch a novel/story titles; I hope these will be mentioned only they introduce some considerable innovation in the genre; of course, this innovation must be mentioned in sources cited.

Can you dump here a preliminary sketch of a classification of contact types:

  • face-to-face vs. message from space (of course shades thereof)
  • "they here" vs. "we there" or "on the interstellar crossroads"
  • optimistic vs. pessimistic
    • in terms of friendliness
    • in terms of communicability.
  • by comparative level of civilizatyions

I can throw in a couple of (referenced) words about the acute pessimism of Stanislaw Lem in this respect. - Altenmann >talk

1) I don't really think that it needs to be split into two different articles. My intention for the Notable examples section is to create subsections for the most well-known works that use First contact (so War of the Worlds, Star Trek, Arrival, Alien, and possibly Star Wars for a limited selection), followed by a list of other works that have Wikipedia pages. If a list of first contact stories is created, I'm open to moving the list over. But I definitely think that the list should be kept here at least for the moment, as it'll take time to set up the list page, and the current list is of some value.
2) Absolutely. If you want, you can remove the original research from the page, though I don't believe it's strictly necessary.
3) This is about the concept of first contact in science fiction, not sci-fi stories about first contact. First contact wars, to use the Stellaris term, are a valid form of it. Just because it's being used as a cheesy excuse for action doesn't make it an invalid use. That said, the only example I can think of is Ender's game, which doesn't really portray first contact.
I absolutely agree that accidental travel doesn't count as first contact, given the fact that one party is only a single person (or a small group), and the interaction usually only lasts for the duration of the story.
4) It has to be Humans discovering aliens for the first time? I disagree on principle. When a work portrays first contact, it's always significant, regardless if it's the first aliens Humanity has found or the thousandth. And defining "first contact" as anthropocentric is quite restrictive (though I can't think of any examples of alien-alien first contact, so that point's moot).
5) Sure. We should probably define considerable, though. No. Restricting works only to those that are considered to "introduce some considerable innovation in the genre" would A: Prevent inclusion of works that are popular/important, but didn't "innovate" the genre, and B: Make it almost impossible to represent a worldwide view on the subject (as other countries takes on the genre may diverge significantly from the United States', and innovation is very likely to be inconsistent between countries). Furthermore, what counts as "considerable" would need to be well-defined, which seems unlikely given how nebulous the term is.
6) I can throw that up as a "methods" subsection under the "types"/"variations" section. I haven't been able to find any sources on this stuff. I'll have another go at it when I'm content with the Examples section.
7) Thanks! If you want, you can write a "Stanisław Lem" subsection under "notable examples". Ships & Space(Edits) 15:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having overhauled several articles on (somewhat) similar topics, my strong recommendation is to start out by locating sources on the overarching topic (e.g. the "First Contact" entry in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction) and to use those sources to rewrite the article pretty much from scratch. Trying to salvage the material that is already here is very likely to result in a lot of effort being wasted due to not reflecting the weight given to different WP:ASPECTS by the overall literature on the topic, which means that it will at some point in the future be necessary to overhaul the article yet again to bring it in line with Wikipedia's WP:Core content policies. It is very, very easy to veer into WP:Original research on topics like these by making subdivisions and whatnot based on what we as editors think are meaningful ways of approaching the topic, but this most be avoided in favour of following the sources—all WP:ANALYSIS categorically must come from the sources, and all analysis of the overarching topic must come from sources on the overarching topic. TompaDompa (talk) 21:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, most of the information is broadly distributed, especially when it comes to the mechanics/specifics of the way first contact is portrayed. This is why I stopped editing the "Types" section with "Method of contact": there are almost no sources detailing the explored themes or subsequent interactions overall, just in specific works, meaning that I'd have to compile those sections just about from scratch. Method of contact was the easiest thing to establish (as individual methods of contact are discussed).
I don't think that I've engaged in original research in either the history section or notable examples section, as the information is restricted to each individual work, and not the topic as a whole. Will it need to be improved? Absolutely. Another overhaul? Not unless I've seriously misread the sources. Also, I don't think that The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction should be used as a main source, as it A) doesn't really focus on the concept, instead focusing on individual stories and B) features written works exclusively. Ships & Space(Edits) 22:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per what sources on the overarching topic—first contact—are those the main notable exmples, then? I note that the "Star Trek" section appears to rely on sources on, well, Star Trek rather than the topic of this article. If there are indeed no sources detailing the explored themes or subsequent interactions overall, that means that those are WP:MINORASPECTS that should not be covered in the article—quite the opposite to you needing to compile those sections just about from scratch. The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction is in general a highly-regarded source on science fiction topics, so if its entry on first contact deals exclusively with works of literature, that's a fairly strong indication that our article should at least focus heavily on literature. It doesn't have to be the only work you use as a main source, of course—there is also e.g. the "First Contact" entry in The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy, another respected source in the field. If you stitch together a narrative of the history of the concept by relying on sources on the individual works, rather than sources on the overarching topic, you are unfortunately engaging in WP:Original research anyway (combining ideas in novel ways is original research even if the individual ideas are not novel). TompaDompa (talk) 22:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy seems to agree with me on Star Trek. Furthermore, most of the movies and books should be easily found with a quick search for "most notable/most important/best science fiction movies/books". The Star Trek movies are the only likely exception, and by extension, I only plan on including Star Trek: First Contact and possibly Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Of course the Star Trek section uses sources primarily on Star Trek: that's where most of the discussion on first contact in Star Trek is. I am, however, willing to grant that calling "notable" examples may be wrong. I just don't think that the section itself is inherently original research.
That's why I haven't included those sections; unless I can find proper sources on them, there's really no way to write them without engaging in original research. I'd argue that the entry in The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy nullifies your claim that the article should focus on literature: most of the referenced works are either movies or TV shows. The Encyclopaedia Britannica has a chronological order to it. See also WP:NOTJUSTANYSYNTH, WP:NOTOR#Compiling facts and information and WP:COUNTSORT (although that's more about mathematics, I believe the principle still applies). Ships & Space(Edits) 23:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Yes, the entry in The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy has less of a focus on literature than the entry in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction does, roughly an equal split between the written word and on-screen portrayals. Taken together, that indicates that the article should focus somewhat more on literature than television and film. The proper balance is of course found by surveying the totality of the available literature and assessing the relative weight. See WP:PROPORTION: treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. Hence why sources on the topic need to be the starting point.
Furthermore, most of the movies and books should be easily found with a quick search for "most notable/most important/best science fiction movies/books". – maybe, but that's irrelevant. What matters to this article is the importance to the topic of first contact specifically, not the overall importance in the science fiction genre.
You say that The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy seems to agree with me on Star Trek., but the problem is that you should leave your own opinions at the door, so to speak. Don't write about what you think should be in the article and go looking for sources that agree with you, look at what the sources on the topic write and follow their lead. TompaDompa (talk) 23:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I'd argue that that's true, both in the history section and the examples section (though I can see reworking the history section so that the films that are based on books are made secondary, if reliable sources can be found). Keep in mind that the examples section is not finished, so it's not indicative of what those sources say.
Except that we're discussing a subtopic of science fiction. If it's a top-tenner in a list of all science fiction, it's probably pretty high in the list of first contact fiction.
I wasn't trying to say that it agrees with my opinion, I was trying to say that it agrees with my conclusion, or in other words, Star Trek's importance is support by it's fairly long treatment of it. I'm sorry
Look, if you think it's really important, you can start a discussion. I know it's not really an argument, but multiple editors have seen and edited this article without adding an "original research" tag at the top (the one in the examples section doesn't count, as it refers to the pre-existing list).
For me, I'm done with this discussion. I know you're trying to be helpful, and I am grateful for that, but I've kept WP:NOR in mind since beginning the overhaul, and it's hard not to feel attacked. Please understand that I know that's not what you're doing; it's not you, it's me. I'm going to finish the Star Trek subsection under examples, and then we'll see. I'm prepared to leave this article if it's decided that I've introduced OR into this page (that's not a promise).
I just want to make it clear: This page is better than it was when I started. I'm willing to admit I'm wrong about everything else, but not that. And as far as I'm concerned, that's good enough. I've been bold, and I've done my best to improve this article. Ships & Space(Edits) 01:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Panic. Your work is appreciated and I dont see people interferring in the article itself. In particular, I am waiting for you to finish your work, to see what will come out of it, and then proceed with disagreenemnts and additions. - Altenmann >talk 01:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
if its entry on first contact deals exclusively with works of literature, that's a fairly strong indication -- I tend to agree that in terms of our article, if a film is based on a book, then the primary focus must be on the book, unless the film throws in the First Contact theme absent in the book. Of course in modern popculture, when nobody reads books :-) films get more hype. - Altenmann >talk 23:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this page has come a long way. While it's not yet finished, I'm going to be done with this page once the chronological list has been dealt with. There's a possibility that I'll add Solaris and Story of Your Life/Arrival subsections, but it's not that likely. For now, though, my work here is done. I might come back and do some cleanup, but that's it.
Thanks to everyone who helped with sources, as well as recommendations on how to improve the page. Ships & Space(Edits) 20:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Detaied descriptions of some novels

I think only really influential novels must be descrived in detail. The War of the Worlds is one, but I dont see any major influence of The Day the Earth Stood Still on the genre, despite it being successful and impressive. - Altenmann >talk 05:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The film is one of the most popular science fiction films ever. I'll grant that it probably doesn't need to be summarized, but I prefer to give too much information than too little (so it's easier to decide what's important and what's not, like carving a statue). Ships & Space(Edits) 16:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Popularity is irrelevant. YOu can write seven pages about how all critics loved it. I am talking about its impact on the genre. This would be of encyclopedic value for the subject of the article and would deserve discussion. - Altenmann >talk 17:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand where you're coming from. However, I'd argue that requiring innovation in the genre for inclusion is highly restrictive: it really allows for only The War of the Worlds and Star Trek, and maybe "First Contact", since it popularized the term. I don't know how impactful Solaris was, but it might also count. Other than that, nothing really "innovated" the genre. So we'd have to leave out Independence Day, Arrival, and Contact, which are all clearly important in the history of the genre (although Arrival might be too recent to say that for sure). Their encyclopedic value is in clarifying and explaining the nuances inherent in the genre, as well as showing the enduring popularity of the theme. Ships & Space(Edits) 18:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should follow the best sources and include what they include. For example this covers the "Sector General" series which is as much medical sf as it is first contact sf. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, there don't seem to be any sources that list "important first contact stories," which makes it hard tell which stories to include. FYI, the link doesn't work for me. Ships & Space(Edits) 18:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my mistake -- try the link now. I can go through my references and see what other sources I can find if you like. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, bad luck for wikipedia, then :-) We dont do our original research here. In particular, we dont decide what to include into the list without it being described or implied as "first contact" in the sources. - Altenmann >talk 18:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of WP:NOR. What I'm saying is that there's no centralized source of all first contact stories, which makes it my job (or rather, the editor's job) to find which stories are. There's no conclusion beyond "here's a list of first contact stories that are well known," so it's hardly original research. I'd say your proposal does require original research, since there doesn't seem to be a pre-existing definition or list of "considerably innovative first contact stories."
For what it's worth though, WP:NOR is something that does come up in the "Types" section. Ships & Space(Edits) 18:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. We need to follow critical sources. And I would like to correct myself a bit. The work must have a nontrivial impact on the genre, recognized by scholars. A film may be covered for a variety of reasons: record gross, fancy cinematographic methods, scandals with superstars, etc. But article content must be focused on article subject. For example talking about Arrival vs. Story of Your Life I would put more accent on the novel, because it has innovative elements for the genre, and the film is secondary in this respect. While the film earned a bunch of awards, it contributed no innovation to the genre compared to the novel. I anint no critic, but I remember the thrill of discovery when I read it first time (and second time). After that the film was, well, OK, impressive, but not much new for brains. - Altenmann >talk 18:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
nothing really "innovated" the genre. - in this case nothing is really to write here, and the list is quite enough. As I said, everything is one mouse click away in Wikipedia. - Altenmann >talk 18:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting off the list

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to move the list to the talk page and use it as a reference for the future work - Altenmann >talk 05:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The chronological list at the end of the page does not belong on this page, as it provides little to no information that would not be better included in a more detailed listing. As @Altenmann: suggested in "Overhauling the article", it should be split into its own list page, List of first contact stories. Ships & Space(Edits) 16:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it should just be removed. TompaDompa (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Much of it is unsourced. If the list were restricted to fiction discussed by reliable secondary sources specifically in the context of first contact stories, it would probably be short enough to be integrated into the text, which would be a much better outcome. The relevant category is a better place to add anything left over, again assuming it's appropriately sourced. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it's unsourced right now doesn't mean that there aren't sources for it. Right now, I'm going through the works and integrating the most notable ones into the text. I believe the topic meets WP:LISTN. Ships & Space(Edits) 17:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely the topic is notable. I'm just suggesting that once you've gone through the sources some will be integrated and the rest will be unsourced and should be cut; and if there are sourced examples that you didn't find a reason to include in the text, the category suffices. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a long standing consensus that lists and categories do not exclude each other. If something is unsourced but pretty much evident and noncontroversial (e.g., the novel explicitly says "this was the first time that Tangrians met Ksilsforim, and proceeds to discuss the event rather than mention it in passing) - then it may be kept in the list, tagged, so that someone more diligent will add a footnote. - Altenmann >talk 18:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These topics do not lend themselves to lists. Creating lists for topics that are better covered in prose format is not helpful—it creates work for other editors (as you say, "someone more diligent") to no particular benefit. There are places on the internet where these kinds of lists are maintained—TV Tropes being a prominent example—but Wikipedia is not the right place. TompaDompa (talk) 19:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you got it vice versa: TV tropes do not maintain lists, but do some original research on TV tropes. While in Wikipedia every subject is listable. Lets take a look what WP:LIST say, by the way.<...><...><...> And it seems that guidelines corroborate my opinion, - Altenmann >talk 19:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TV Tropes maintains lists and allows original research. Here's their list about first contact: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FirstContact (with several sub-lists by medium such as https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/FirstContact/Film and https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/FirstContact/Literature). Just because we could make a list on every conceivable topic doesn't make it a good idea—there's an argument to be made that list of rainy day in London would meet WP:LISTN, but the appropriate article to have is obviously climate of London. We have several WP:Featured articles on topics like these—Mars in fiction, Venus in fiction, and Sun in fiction—but no WP:Featured lists, and there's a reason that's the case. TompaDompa (talk) 19:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We dont have Rainy days in London, hence no list. - Altenmann >talk 20:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lists in TV Tropes: sorry, I am mistaken; I didnt look there for a long time. Good to know; we may "steal" titles form there, but write our own descriptions. - Altenmann >talk 20:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need to have an "X" article to have a "list of X" article, but I think you know that. The point is that not every possible list topic is a good idea for a list article. TompaDompa (talk) 20:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And my point is that whether an idea is good or not must be decided by a community, up to AfD (And I myself contributed to nuking quite a few lists, kinda List of songs about weather). - Altenmann >talk
Creating poor lists and bringing them to WP:AfD is, I'm sure you'll agree, rather a waste of the community's time when the alternative is not creating those lists in the first place. We can exercise some sort of restraint by using our judgment and not creating lists if we are not sure that doing so would be a good idea. TompaDompa (talk) 00:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per saying from my childhood, "same eggs, profile view": who is to decide that the list is poor? Not to say that we are talking about a pre-existing list. - Altenmann >talk 00:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a fair amount of precedent that TV Tropes-style lists on topics like this are to be replaced by prose articles, not complemented by prose articles. TompaDompa (talk) 01:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell, there's nothing on WP:SAL about whether or not a list should or should not be created other than the notability guidelines. Ships & Space(Edits) 19:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correct: notability is the most basic rule for creation/deletion of any wikipedia article. About lists the guideline specifically clarifies: list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Clearly, "first contact" is discussed in sources as a class of scifi works, i.e., "a group". - Altenmann >talk 21:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any strong reason to create a list on a topic that is better covered in prose format? TompaDompa (talk) 19:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Covering a topic in a specialized article is not "better" than a list. These are simply different tools. FYI, lists are not just lists of titles; they may contain brief descriptions of items, a "prose format", if you like. An article on topic dwells on the topic according to the logic of the topic, while a list simply enumerates items, alphabetically or chronologically. - Altenmann >talk 19:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's the point of any list if it can be included in a category page instead? It's an easily accessible list of a topic or items pertaining to a topic. Ships & Space(Edits) 19:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Covering a topic in a specialized article is not "better" than a list. NEither a category can replace a list. These are simply three different tools. FYI, lists are not just lists of titles; they may contain brief descriptions of items, a "prose format", if you like. An article on topic dwells on the topic according to the logic of the topic, while a list simply enumerates items, alphabetically or chronologically. And categories do not have descriptions. COmpare List of French inventions and discoveries and Category:French inventions. - Altenmann >talk 19:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are different tools. They have different uses. Experience shows us that for fictional topics such as these, prose articles work much, much better than list articles. There is a cost associated with creating additional articles, namely editor time (not just in creating articles but in maintaining them to an acceptable standard—an area where lists are relatively costly, especially when compared to categories), and if there is not a clear benefit to it we should refrain from doing so. A lot of time and effort has gone towards cleaning up lists in this general area (i.e. fiction) that have been created in good faith but either not been brought up to acceptable standards in the first place or not maintained to those standards in the long run. Bad content is a net negative to Wikipedia. TompaDompa (talk) 20:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maintaining a list is a piece of cake once you mercilessly clean it up and then disallow adding unreferenced items. I am "maintaining" several of them. - Altenmann >talk 20:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do the same to several lists, but I wouldn't say it's a piece of cake. The list format attracts poor content—both in terms of entries that don't belong and, in the cases where the entries have some kind of additional information beyond plain membership in the list, additional information/description. It necessitates an ongoing commitment of time and effort, and to what benefit? For these fiction-related topics, we get neither the depth of proper prose articles with overarching analysis (as on e.g. Mars in fiction) or the self-maintenance of categories. We instead get mainly the worst aspects of both alternatives. Why on Earth would we want a list here when we can have a prose article and a category? TompaDompa (talk) 20:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
an ongoing commitment of time and effort - that's what we are doing, aren't we? to what benefit? -- I dont see benefit in the whole category:Porn stars, but this does not mean other people see it. - Altenmann >talk 20:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suffice it to say that there are many, many abandoned lists where that commitment has not been honored. The question about what the benefit would be was, as you well know, not about the topic but the format: what would the benefit to having a list in addition to a prose article and category be in this instance? TompaDompa (talk) 20:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A prose article is supposed to focus on the essentials of the subject, easily drowned in the long list of items that fit into this "taxonomical pigeonhole". We have Cultural depictions of dinosaurs and a nice sortable List of films featuring dinosaurs - Altenmann >talk 21:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are not seriously attempting to present List of films featuring dinosaurs as an example to emulate? It's an absolute embarrassment, a prime example of a list where responsibility for maintaining it to an acceptable standard has been shirked. The vast majority of the entries are unsourced, for crying out loud. There are no clear inclusion criteria: the Toy Story films, which categorically do not include any dinosaurs (though they do include dinosaur toys) are on the list. TompaDompa (talk) 21:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, IMO this is a perfect example of a format to emulate. I didnt look into its content, I simply loved the layout. As for sources there, do you seriously think that, e.g., Walking with Dinosaurs: The 3D Movie is not verifiable that it is about dinosaurs? - Altenmann >talk 21:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am done with chaotic ping-pong in this thread, jumping here and there. Obviously, we are entrenched in our opinions. Let other people have a say. - Altenmann >talk 21:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I think the Toy Story example I provided amply demonstrates the need for sources rather than editorial judgment about what goes on the list, or indeed does not go on the list. I likewise think the list itself amply demonstrates that this format, even if you like it, attracts the addition of content without much forethought. TompaDompa (talk) 21:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A "straw man" argument, "preaching to the choir", etc,. Nobody in this talk suggested ignoring the need in sources, just the contrary. IF a content is added to a cleaned list "without much forethought", you are in your full rights to demand a reference or remove the addition. - Altenmann >talk 22:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I took your As for sources there, do you seriously think that, e.g., Walking with Dinosaurs: The 3D Movie is not verifiable that it is about dinosaurs? to mean that you think verifiability, rather than outright verification, is sufficient. If I misunderstood you, I apologize. TompaDompa (talk) 22:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you understood me correctly. In my book the primary goal of WP:V is to preclude putting[1] a footnote[1] on every[1] fact[1] mentioned in the article.[1] However if someone challenges something{{cn}} then you have to address the challenge. In the 'Walking Dinosaurs' case, WP:V is readily satisfied by the article about the film, and if challenged, one may easily copy a ref from the latter. - Altenmann >talk 23:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to me a rather antiquated view of the purpose of WP:V that is out of step with modern expectations on sourcing on Wikipedia. We don't really go for WP:General references nowadays, for instance. TompaDompa (talk) 23:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is a rather literal reading of the policy: ...all material must be attributABLE to reliable.... Anyway, I am a rather antiquated wikipedian myself :-) General References is a vestige of the good old times of paper scholarship when authors were supposed to be trusted.<sigh> Not so for Wikipedians :-(. When I see GR, I slap {{more footnotes}}. - Altenmann >talk 23:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The policy does not state that the purpose is to preclude putting a footnote on every fact mentioned in the article, which is what I said was an antiquated view. I'm not disputing what the policy says, I'm saying that expectations have evolved as the encyclopaedia has matured and people nowadays (a large percentage of them, anyway) do actually expect everything to be cited explicitly. TompaDompa (talk) 00:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, the policy does not say that. This is my personal view and I dont think it is antiquated. I am not inclined to submit to someone's "expectations" if they are not in wikilawbooks. As I said, if something is challenged, just slap {cn} rather that expect for me to expect someone's expectations. (That said, I do follow strict referencing in my writings.) Not to say that your statement everything to be cited explicitly is inaccurate: Just start reading the United States article, I am sure the most scrutinized one.- Altenmann >talk 00:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A bit hyperbolic perhaps, but I don't think it's unfair to say that the general perspective (or one might perhaps even say community consensus) on the appropriate amount of inline citations has shifted towards preferring a much heavier use thereof compared to the early days of Wikipedia. I don't remember where I first read it or who it was that said it, but there is a not-entirely-uncommon view that "on a long enough timescale, pretty much everything is likely to be WP:Challenged" (and thus requires an inline citation per WP:V). TompaDompa (talk) 01:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c d e Really dummy ref
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sources

I had a look through some of my books for relevant material, beyond the SFE3 article linked above. I found this:

  • Morgan, Chris (1978). "Alien Encounter". In Holdstock, Rob (ed.). Encyclopedia of Science Fiction. London: Octopus Books. pp. 104–121. ISBN 0-7064-0756-3. The whole chapter is worth looking at but there is a section specifically about first contact sf. I can scan this if anyone is interested.
  • This is an anthology of first contact stories by Damon Knight; the introduction unfortunately says almost nothing, but the fact that Knight selected them is itself a pointer to their significance as he was one of the best-regarded critics in the genre.
  • This might be worth a look -- there's a section on Alien Encounter, starting on page 2, that lists related anthologies; those anthologies might contain editorial material that would be citable. Some of the editors would definitely be reliable sources -- Silverberg and Carr for example.

James Gunn's ''The New Encyclopedia of Science Fiction'' has a couple of pages about the way aliens are represented but although some of these are first contact stories, not all are, and Gunn's focus is on alienness, not the contact itself. I think it'll be necessary to exclude material like that as it's not specifically about first contact. I was surprised to find so few explicit references in my other books.

A Google Scholar search was more productive -- this comes up with several papers that look relevant. Most should be available through the Wikipedia Library. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Ships & Space(Edits) 17:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, Holdstock's Encyclopedia is already on the Internet Archive.
I'm hesitant to use Google Scholar. On the one hand, there's quite a lot of material to work with; on the other hand, I'm not sure I really want to go through dozens of papers that may or may not result in undue weight on some aspects if used. Ships & Space(Edits) 16:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What to do with the list?

Well, it seems that the split proposal failed. @Mike Christie suggested moving the contents (that have articles) to Category:First contact science fiction. This is absolutely a good idea and needs to be done, but that doesn't change the fact that the list on the page still needs to be dealt with. Since splitting is off the table, it can either be improved, or removed. I'm personally ambivalent, but I'd rather have some thoughts on it before going ahead with improving it. Ships & Space(Edits) 16:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about moving it all to a collapsed section on this talk page, where it can be a reference as the prose part of the article is improved? Anything that's already mentioned in the prose part of the article doesn't need to be in the list as well; anything not mentioned in the prose probably isn't referenced by secondary sources and so shouldn't be in the article anyway. And of course if anything is removed that is later found to be discussed in the sources it's easy to add it back. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That works. Although, with the exception of The Three-Body Problem, Story of Your Life/Arrival, and maybe the Culture series and "First Contact," the new list is almost done (though I'd also like to remove the Close Encounters excerpt), so I'm not sure it's necessarily worth it. Ships & Space(Edits) 17:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having spotted this and the above discussion on the closure requests page, I would second TompaDompa's attitude early upthread. If there's not significant secondary sourcing for first contacts in specific fiction and it's discussed in the context of chronological depictions, I see very little reason to spin off what can be prose into a list format. And yeah, the only way you can maintain lists like these is if you directly cite each individual entry. Otherwise they rapidly decay and cannot be easily verified. Mike Christie's suggestion to migrate it to talk as a skeleton to improve the prose coverage seems a good one. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Once the above split discussion is closed, I'll move the list over here (probably into this thread), assuming the closing editor doesn't. I'll also remove the items already included in the prose list section. I might move the current Solaris content to the "Stanisław Lem" subsection. Ships & Space(Edits) 20:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ships&Space: Closed, following WP:SPLITCLOSE. Go ahead. - Altenmann >talk 06:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content

List

I've kept the references, as they may be helpful. Note that I've removed multiple works that are either already treated in the article or are mentioned multiple times in the list itself. I removed a quote from one of the references, as it was quite long and is almost certainly not going to be useful. I've kept most of the prose in the list, mostly because it just doesn't seem worthwhile, but also because it might be helpful in writing the prose section versions (assuming that the work belongs, that is). Ships & Space(Edits) 15:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Globalize

Understandingly, the anglophone Wikipedians are biased with anglophone sources, which, again understandingly, are biased to anglophone literature. This is no wonder, because anglophone scifi has been overwhelmingly dominating the market. A minute ago I updated the article with a French classic scifi I read in my childhood and fortunately found in Wikipedia now. I will try to find more in my spare time. - Altenmann >talk 21:20, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This problem is of course compounded by the majority of the article relying not on sources about the topic of the article—first contact—but sources on the works themselves. That this reproduces the biases of editors who chose these works to locate sources for in the first place is not exactly surprising and one of many reasons that this approach to writing articles should not be taken. TompaDompa (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree in general, the article is its current state is much better that the previous laundry list. - Altenmann >talk 23:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In relative terms, sure. It is still in a rather sorry state, however. TompaDompa (talk) 23:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It might be useful to search up the term in other languages. While I agree that sources should generally be found first, it should be noted that it can be very hard to find sources through the name of the article. For instance, the search term "first contact" is more likely to bring up Star Trek: First Contact and broad discussions/introductions to the topic than it is to bring up a thorough analysis. Google Scholar would be fine, if it weren't for the fact that it has an astronomical meaning too.
I don't really know if I'd say it's in a rather sorry state; is it anything above C-class? No. But it's still being worked on (more so than other articles, that is), so any judgement of quality is premature. Ships & Space(Edits) 00:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the term

TompaDompa correctly noticed that we have no reference that First Contact (novelette) is the origin of the term. Nor we have a reference who was first to apply the phrase to the event of this type. - Altenmann >talk 23:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to use ngram to track the usage, but it was futile, because the vast majority of old hits were for actronomical meaning, like here. - Altenmann >talk 23:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both the Historical Dictionary of Science Fiction[1] and Brave New Words[2] have Leinster's "Proxima Centauri" as the earliest listed occurrence. That doesn't mean that it was the earliest of course, and we can't really say that it was the earliest according to those sources, but we can—if we want to—note that it is the earliest listed occurrence in those sources. It is however worth noting that this mention is presented in [square brackets] in the Historical Dictionary of Science Fiction, which means that it is "A quotation that does not represent an example of the word being defined [...] Typical reasons for this are a different form or part of speech, a related sense that is not worth including on its own but sheds light on the use in question, or a description of a technical process that does not use the word itself." TompaDompa (talk) 23:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being a Sci-Fi writer, Leinster might have been aware of the use of the term in the astronomical sense. If so, that explains the square brackets. But the term's very straightforward; it is the first time two peoples have come into contact. So it's possible that Leinster just made it up, and the HDSF assumed he took it from the astronomical sense.
For now, I don't really see any reason to not just list "Proxima Centauri" as the origin. Adding an explanatory note is a good idea. Ships & Space(Edits) 01:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article scope

The more I am reading around, the more I become convinced that the content of the current article has wrong scope. In fact, virtually every scifi story which involves aliens, unless it is a part of some cycle, involves the first contact. Therefore the section "History" is both too ambitious and too superficial: there is no history of "first contact" stories separable from the history of extraterrestrials in fiction, i.e, it all basically belongs to "Aliens in fiction" page. Instead, the article must focus on the schlolarly treatment of the issues related to concept of "first contact": its forms, issues, subtopics, and consequences - this was my first suggestion, and after a cycle I come back to it. I started fleshing out the section "Types and themes", and this must be the core of the article.

And after seeing the overblown "Star Trek" section, I think that the section "Notable examples" must go it the same dustbin as the "Chronological list". Really, Star Trek his its own bunch of articles and must be covered here inasmuch as it exemplifies the facets of the sobject, namely, "first contact".

Same about WoW. It is already mentioned several times in the text, in proper contexts. I fail to understand how its huge section contributes to understanding of the concept of "first contact".

With all due respect and applause to the hard work of S&S, the article, after the initial major cleanup, must be reconsidered again. - Altenmann >talk 00:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Altenmann, are you saying that we need to remove more material from this paget that is only about aliens and not specifically about first contact? If so I agree in principle but haven't looked at the sources S&S has used to see if they are about first contact. For example I could well imagine that some sources about first contact discuss the Star Trek contacts with the various alien races. I think we have to look at exactly what the sources say. I think virtually every scifi story which involves aliens, unless it is a part of some cycle, involves the first contact is too strong, by the way -- there are too many counterexamples to list. It's true that every future in which we have met aliens implies there was a first contact at some point, but even when the story is explicitly about the new relationships between humans and aliens it's not necessarily a first contact story. Tiptree's "And I Awoke and Found Me Here on the Cold Hill's Side" is a good example: the entire point of the story is humanity's fascination with alien species, but it's about contact with aliens, not first contact. And I see checking on the SFE3 that they discuss that story on the article on aliens, not the article on first contact. The boundary between a story like that and Knight's "Stranger Station", another classic story, is narrow, but "Stranger Station" is about how we go about contacting the aliens, whereas the Tiptree is about what happens when we have established contact. I think we're going to find ourselves having to police that boundary in this article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
re "virtually every scifi story" - I agree, it is an overstatement. This is probably because I was immersed in "first contact" now. Stepping back, I agree there are plenty of stories set in the universe full of known aliens. That said, I still have an opinion there is no reason to list all aliens met in star trek, neither it is important to know that WoW was first hardcovered in 1898, spawned lots of comics and TV series, and what's not -- it contributes little to understanding the concept of "first contact". Further, "notable examples" is IMO cherry-picking; after all, in Wikipedia, everything that has an article is notable (simply because all nonnotable is nuked by AfD). - Altenmann >talk 02:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Notable examples have to be identified as such by the sources, not just because we have an article on them and they fit the definition. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not what I meant. In the books cited the tales are seldom explicitly described as notable, prominent, etc. Take a look eg. at SFE. The novels/stories are merely listed an examples for certain ideas, and there is no evidence that they are mentioned for their particular prominence. - Altenmann >talk 03:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure we're disagreeing -- aren't we both saying that for a separate "notable examples" section to exist, there would have to be sources (preferably multiple) that don't just mention them but specifically say they are notable examples or use equivalent language? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The scope should be determined by the sources. Both the "History" and "Notable examples" sections need to be removed (or possibly, in the former case, revamped). TompaDompa (talk) 19:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Languages

A number of languages definitely are among the top, thanks to the cinema and to the efforts puut in creating them. I guess these would be

  • Klingon, I's say #1. Heck, I am old enough to remember tere was even a Wikipedia in Klingon language, mercilessly killed by the SuperWikiPowers (I worgot which bureaucrats control creation of new wikis) But I am noto sure whether it is the language of the first contact (I even dont know whether there was any "first contact" of humans and klingon made in film
  • Na'vi of Avatar (Surely it is #1 for younger generations
  • Languages in Star Wars (Being not a fan, I am not sure whether there were any firsts contacts in this universe
  • Unnamed language of Arrival (my preference though is the take from the Story of Your Life) Fancy it may look like in the movies, it misses a crucial feature of any language: redundancy, which is a must for noise-tolerance in any "natural" communications medium. Whatever. I didnt like the film anyway.

- Altenmann >talk 06:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:First_contact_(science_fiction)&oldid=1223738156"