Jump to content

Talk:Steampunk

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DanzerMan (talk | contribs) at 08:36, 15 September 2009 (→‎Steampunk in World of Warcraft/Video Games: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Missing Titles

You know what I noticed? that after some of the other matching anime (Steam Boy, Howl's moving Castle) they forgot to add Castle in the Sky and some of the authors other really good "steam punk" works. Other than that no complaints, Good work Wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.210.116.156 (talk) 14:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if you find that there is valid content that needs adding, you could do it yourself. Provided that you format it correctly, and add references, obviously. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 17:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thing is an entry like this can't mention everything - it has to bring in examples that help illustrate points and helps the entry in general rather than trying to be an exhaustive catalogue. The more comprehensive list can be found here: List of steampunk works, although what one person considers to be Steampunk may differ from other people's so if in doubt raise it on the talk page there (worth noting that the main entry has to make a good case for it otherwise it veers into original research as it is purely your opinion). (Emperor (talk) 18:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Castle in the Sky is to me the seminal steampunk work. beefman (talk) 05:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whitechapel Gods by S.M. Peters is an excellent steampunk work of fiction.

--Pyrewyrm (talk) 21:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst this isn't intended to be an exhaustive catalogue, would it be worth adding a mention of the "Mortal Engine" series by Philip Reeve into the "...in Popular Fiction" section. It would be a rare example of steampunk set in the far-future, yet embodying the victorian-era aesthetic and feel. Hemmers (talk) 05:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil & Wild Wild West

I removed the films "Brazil" and "Wild Wild West" from the "Recent steampunk" paragraphs. I don't think they make for the finest examples of steampunk films; Brazil seems more dystopian and Wild West West is Weird West. Besides, this entry is not supposed to be a List of all steampunk works. Ottens (talk) 12:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. Brazil is not even vaguely steampunk, as has been discussed at length in the past. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 13:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we remove Brazil about once a month from the List of steampunk works!! That is the one that mystifies me. Wild Wild West is worth a mention on the list but doesn't seem steamy enough to be worth mentioning here (although it is a good example of the kind cross-genres in the Weird West/Science fiction Western vein, as it is Steampunk in the Wild West). As I've said here and elsewhere on similar entries we should only be using relevant examples which help show points and are generally useful in discussing the subject. We aren't trying to be comprehensive because you just end up with "and... and... and..." which is just a stealth list. (Emperor (talk) 16:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Exactly correct, Emperor! I do not know what it is that convinces people Brazil is steampunk, but they just keep adding it to the list. I agree with your other points, as well. Only the best examples need be mentioned in this article. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 19:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed to all the above. Also both the WWW TV series and film are already in the article!Yobmod (talk) 09:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC),[reply]
I think the reason many people think Brazil is steampunk is the ducts. It's a futuristic world, but they still use all these old, tangled ducts. I still don't think it's enough to make it a steampunk film though. KenFehling (talk) 05:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


If you search "Brazil" and "Steampunk" on google news archives you will find articles going back to the late 90's.

Here are only a few-

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

The popular definition of the genre didn't used to be as cliche-ridden as it is now.

--72.73.65.219 (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Jezzy

A better one [6]

There are many more, I think it is suffice to say that it is highly influential from the number of articles about the topic.

Dr.Steel?

Should Dr. Phineas Waldolf Steel be mentioned on this page? Ive seen him described as a "guy of Steampunk." Plus he has glorious Gogles. I think his website is www.DoctorSteel.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.70.169 (talk) 07:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Steel combines aspects of both steampunk and pulp mad science, and he has a significant fanbase. He would be appropriate to include as another example of steampunk music, along with the Clockwork Dolls and the Unextraordinary Gentlemen. Jaborwhalky (talk) 17:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why are more examples needed? There is a List of steampunk works for examples. What is needed is (sourced) discusion of what "steampunk" music even means. Just dressing up in second hand clothes? Examples do nothing to help readers understand, unless they already know the bands (hence probably know more about this genre than the article!), which for 99.999% of the world is not the case.Yobmod (talk) 09:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Joshua Pfeiffer of Vernian Process founded the concept of "steampunk music" back around 2003, but as the earliest documentation is either on Livejournal or an online message board I have no idea whether it is possible to cite that. Do we want to remove everyone but him from the music section and see if he can provide documentation as to what "steampunk music" is? Or do we simply want to remove music from the section on subculture and direct the curious toward the list? Jaborwhalky (talk) 19:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.Steel was recently mentioned in an article and video by Mtv about Steampunk music, prehaps now he is worth mentioning?

I wont revert is if it sourced, but the problem is not if he is worthy or notable, it is simply an editorial decision. There is a List article already, so how many musicians should be listed here, and why? The original 2 seem to have been the earliest, and one invented the term, hence their inclusion. Dr. Steel might be useful to show how the term is poorly defined and randomly applied (he seems musically completely different from the others), but why is the third band now there? Why are they special? Are they only known to the sub-culture, unlike the others? And why are all of them US musicians? Should the sentence say this is purely an internal US fad?Yobmod (talk) 09:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC) Just checked, seems Dr, Steel is not notable enough for a wikipedia article, and the other new addition is tagged for notability, which usually precedes deletion. Building up their articles to be AfD proof is probable the best thing to do, rather than include them here.Yobmod (talk) 09:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, untill Wikipedia decide to include the Doc all info you need can be found at the Steelipedia http://toylandwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.70.169 (talk) 11:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no association with the band, I am not some street teamer or anyone attempting 'viral marketing'. But surely MTV [1] is a reliable enough source of reference for Doctor Steel to be included? I am not bothered one way or the other, 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) 22:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find the recent removal of Dr. Steel from the Steampunk music section to be circular reasoning, not to mention prejudicial. Circular because it is noted in the edit that he (and the other removed bands) was removed based on lack of wikipages/releases. Yet Wikipedia refuses to allow any mention of him to be on any Wikipedia pages, or have an entry of his own, so how could he possibly have anything but a lack of wikipages? And prejudicial as he is termed 'less notable', despite the fact that he is called in the referenced MTV article a "great example" of the Steampunk genre, and therefore obviously worthy of mention in an entry describing the genre. (Apparently MTV thinks he is notable - unless Wikipedia knows more about the music business than does MTV?) I understand there has been animosity in the past between Wikipedia and the fans of Dr. Steel (and hopefully there can be some discussion about this among "cooler" heads?); nonetheless since the article is referenced and since he is cited in the article as a great example of the genre, he should get mention in an entry that cites that article, simply in the basis of journalistic integrity. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 04:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Steel wasn't re3moved from wikipedia, it was moved to the most appropriate page - the one that exists for listing steampunk bands. This is the page for discussing and describing steampunk as a whole genre.Yobmod (talk) 08:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OIC. It might then be a good idea to put a note in the music section saying "see also steampunk works" to show these other bands. I see the page noted up in the fiction section, which is why I did not make the connection way down here in the subculture section, and I doubt many others will either. Just a suggestion to clear up any future confusion. Thanks. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Godd idea! Done.Yobmod (talk) 10:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New reference source

found this on 3QD today, it's an article in the UK Guardian re: steampunk. I'm never signed in, so I can't do any edits myself, but it's got lots of nice references for getting the page annotated a little better. Thats the problem with strange new lifestyle/literary genres poking up - we never get 'real' references until after the movement is well underway, if at all.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2008/oct/17/popandrock2 is the link - but it's the UK Guardian, from Friday, October 17th, 2008.

Hope that helps people out! 198.204.92.102 (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)librarian[reply]

Thanks, but this was added 2 days ago. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Clockwork Quartet seems unlikely to fit notability guidelines at this time. Bands like Unextraordinary Gentlemen, and The Clockwork Dolls aren't included in the list for the same reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.82.98.50 (talk) 01:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rubbish, they are mentioned in a reliable source. That is what is needed. -—RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 01:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you unalphabetize the list of bands?? I moved them around so they would be listed alpabetically instead of the random way they were listed previously. I also removed that line from the Guardian that was an assumption based on the writers limited knowledge of Steampunk influenced music. Not all Steampunk bands have those elements in their music, and that statement is very misleading. EDIT: Upon further research that quote was misquoted in the first place. The author was specifically talking about the element in Thomas Truax music, not Steampunk in general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.82.98.50 (talk) 17:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who are you to that author's "limited knowledge"? What makes you an expert? We have a quote from notable and reliable source, you cannot alter or remove it based on your presumptions of greater or wider knowledge. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 00:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I happen to be one of the first people to attempt to make Steampunk themed music with Vernian Process. For some reason my old FACT.50 account password is gone, and I haven't gotten around to looking for it, since I don't need to be logged in to post. I also spend a decent amount of time researching new bands that claim Steampunk/Neo-Victorian influences, as well as running the only Steampunk themed record label. So yes I'd say I'm pretty qualifieed to make that statement. My point was that this author's knowledge of Steampunk music is based on her/his very limited interviews with a handful of new UK based steampunk musicians (besides Truax who has been around a while). And that statement was mis-quoted in the first place. Just look at the article, the author specifically used that analogy to describe one very niche artist. Here I even copied the whole paragraph so you can see it:
"I don't mind being known as a steampunk, because it represents things I have a fondness for," says Truax, whose music can be said to typify SP. Though internet debates rage about exactly what constitutes the SP sound, Truax has the major components, including sonorous, half-spoken vocals and melancholy melodies influenced by Tom Waits and eastern European Gypsy bands.
That description certainly doesn't apply to mine, the Unextraordinary Gentlemen's, Abney Park's, The Clockwork Dolls, Dr. Steel's or Rasputina's sounds. Which make up the most active members of the Steampunk themed musical groups. So yes it should be removed or at least moved to Thomas Truax's own article and not on the general Steampunk entry. And I still don't understand how an artist can be considered notable if they don't even have a single song released yet (Clockwork Quartet)? One live performance does not notability make, even if the band happened to be mentioned in one article. I'm not saying they won't be notable. But why the double standards when it comes to who can and can't be listed as a notable artist on wikipedia? Look at UXG for an example. They aren't listed even though they have done national tours, have been featured in articles and generally fit the ideas of Steampunk music better than most bands claiming the title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.82.98.50 (talk) 20:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds to me like you have a conflict-of-interest, and should not be editing anything having to do with steampunk music. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 23:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't even make sense. Anyone can edit anything on wikipedia. What makes you think you have any authority on the genre? I haven't seen any articles from you about it published in major publications? All I know is that you seem to think you run the Steampunk article. If you were to try and get me banned from editing, I would just go edit it from a different computer. So good luck with your crusade to make everyone think "Steampunk = what you say". Oh and way to completely ignore my many valid points.
Quite wrong, actually. Wikipedia has a policy on conflicts-of-interest, which you can read for yourself. If you are requested or told to stop editing because you have a c-o-i, and continue to do so "from a different computer," then you are a vandal, and will be dealt with accordingly. I will also remind you to assume good faith in future. I do not "seem to think" I "run the Steampunk article," as you say above. As far as what I've published, on this topic or any other, I would say that is well outside your area of knowledge. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 00:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You don't know anything about my knowledge of the subject. There's a reason I started making music with a Steampunk theme. Because I've been researching it since the late 80's. It is my primary interest. You still haven't addressed any of my points either, which I feel are perfectly valid. About Assuming Good Faith. Why don't you listen to your own words. I pointed out that the quote in the article was mis-quoted and misleading which is a fact. But you continuously reverted my valid edits. As far as coi go, despite my involvement within the steampunk community I always keep things neutral and NPOV when I edit articles. If I were to start saying one band or another was the only Steampunk music, or the primary example of it, then you could call me on coi. But I don't do that. I present facts and references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.82.98.50 (talk) 00:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Clockwork Quartet now have some music online at http://www.clockworkquartet.com. The Clockwork Quartet have also just had a 4 page feature in UK's Bizarre Magazine (doesn't seem to be a free online copy of the article). I believe they now qualify under Wikipedia's notability guidelines for musicians and ensembles, so I am re-adding them to the article. FYI I am the band's producer. Nice to meet you folks. ThreeMinutesOlder (talk) 10:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Without a verifiable, and unbiased reference, "The Clockwork Quartet" cannot be added to this article. Official websites and a claim from the bands producer do not count, we need a third party website that can be linked from wikipedia, and that does not include blogs. magnius (talk) 13:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why does the Guardian article not count? It existed in print as a full page article, as well as on the website in blog form. ThreeMinutesOlder (talk) 13:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because the Grauniad ref doesn't refer to a gig, it only refers to the future possibility of one. Which issue of Bizarre? I'm not going to buy one, but if I can find some rubber gloves I might flick through it in the newsagent. And some dark glasses. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The January issue of Bizarre has a special on Steampunk, in which The Clockwork Quartet has a 4 page feature. Rubber gloves seconded - our feature looks positively wholesome compared to some of the magazine! They also seem to have decided that we're a musical rather than a band. We're a group of musicians who produce narrative songs, both studio recorded and on stage - I am not sure how to apply the distinction between musical and band. Perhaps we can have an honourable mention of the first citable Steampunk musical instead? ThreeMinutesOlder (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Print cannot be linked to from this article, and blogs are unacceptable references usually, but I looked on your website and could see no evidence of your blog anyway, just a message saying "Coming Soon". Don't get me wrong, I love what I am hearing and agree, it IS Steampunk, but we need a verifiable, independent source that can be linked to from this article. It's nothing personal, just (I think silly) wiki rules. It took a loooong time to finally get a source that would allow Dr Steel to be included. magnius (talk) 13:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We were referenced in the blog of a reputable mainstream newspaper (The Guardian) - not our own blog - I think there has been some confusion. (Glad you like the music, by the way!) ThreeMinutesOlder (talk) 13:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, hold on, there is an online Guardian article that mentions the band, I'm sure that it must be acceptable magnius (talk) 13:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added it again, I don't see why the reference should be acceptable for Abney, but not TCQ. Seems perfectly valid to me. magnius (talk) 13:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because Abney Park are a band who play gigs, The Clockwork Quartet are (as described by that ref) someone's back-bedroom project who might play a gig in the future. As this is the lead article for a whole genre, I fail to see how they can be sufficiently notable for a mention anyway, even assuming that their gig (if it happened) is supported by a ref (if one exists). We've just had a fairly heated argument that George Melies had to be erased fronm the canon of steampunk, yet this band (who still aspire to being one-hit wonders) seemingly deserve billing on the main article!
Just to put a brake on the referencing editors here but when did it become a condition that cited sources must be online? True online sources are easier to verify but the VAST amount of reference material for any subject is still bound in dead tree editions. If, as an example, a major newspaper choose to print an article but choose not to put that article with their online archive that does not suddenly make it an invalid source. ~ Brother William (talk) 17:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think any band/project that has a cite would be great at the List of steampunk works, but agree that this article should be about the genre as a whole, therefore only the most noteworthy examples should be on this page. The examples on this page are only at all useful if the reader has heard of them, so non-notable bands really don't inform the reader. Hence i would also put Dr. Steel and Unextroadinary Gentlemen on the list page, as not being particularly notable. This page is not so long yet, but combined with the list it would be, so if we are going to keep a seperate main article and list of examples, then there must be some criteria for diciding what goes where, and notability seems the easiest in most cases. (Most notable here, along with firsts/pioneers, less-notable on the list.)Yobmod (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Q: In what sense is a band with no releases that has never played a gig even a band? Do they just dress up in frock-coats and pose with guitars?
This seems unnecessarily aggressive, even ignoring the fact that we do have tracks released. A band is still a band if it has not performed in the same way that a theatre company is a theatre company even if it has not offered any productions. We are well known in the UK Steampunk scene, and notable enough to have been included in several articles on Steampunk in the UK press (fyi we have been interviewed for more articles than have yet been published). We have performed to select audiences, and we have produced a number of studio tracks, but until recently none of these have been on public release. Just because something doesn't exist on the internet doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. If wikipedia guidelines suggest that, given what is publicly available and verifiable, The Clockwork Quartet does not satisfy the criteria for being included in this article then so be it - as the band's producer, I do not wish to be accused of conflict of interest - but the above comment suggests article ownership and a presumption of other users' ignorance. ThreeMinutesOlder (talk) 19:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why wikipedia list them at the List of steampunk works. It has nothing to do with ownership or ignorance, it is the fact that we have made a special page exactly for listing the hundreds of works of steampunk that can simply not be presented in this article while maintaining a well written encylopedia article. works or bands should only be in this article if they illuminate a particular point about steampunk, with a reliable source to back it up. Any band that has nothing more to be written about other than "they exist and are steampunk" should go to the list. Note that the more lenient WP:Music notability guidelines expect a band to release 2 albums to be notable or to have a charted release, amoungst other things - when editors say notable, they are referring to the wikipedia guielines, not their own opinions.Yobmod (talk) 08:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First picture on the article

While the comptuer modified in steampunk style is gorgeous I don't think it's the best picture to have as the first picture of the article. Steampunk is primarly a genre of fiction, so I think it would be more relevant to have a picture of some steampunk fiction, for example cover of a stempunk novel or images from a steampunk comic or movie.Shubi (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a valid point, although such images are likely to be 'Non-free' and hence would not be permitted for use on this page. EdJogg (talk) 01:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was the problem - a book cover for example would not be fair use. Any considering the number of citations, Steampunk's status as primarily a fiction genre is not so overwhelming. Almost all substantial sources talk more about the fashion and music nowadays (I found the same while looking for cites on Cyberpunk).Yobmod (talk) 09:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kyle Cassidy has made a nice steampunk photo-illustration available in the commons, so I put that in. Dd-b (talk) 20:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paris train pic and sentence

A couple of attempts have been made to add this, which were then reverted due to lack of source. I'd say that if a source cannot be provided, removal is better than simply tagging and waiting for a cite that will never come. The photo seems to be user-made, which hints at original research imo.Yobmod (talk) 13:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilinks are never reliable sources, and the François Schuiten page does not even contain the word Steampunk. Please stop edit warring, and discuss on the talk page. preferably with a reason that a citation calling the station Steampunk style is not being given.Yobmod (talk) 14:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SOFIXIT
A simple question: Do you believe that Arts & Metiers isn't deliberately themed in a steampunk style? If you don't, then by all means revert additions that claim it is. If you do (and it seems fairly obvious to any passenger), then how about doing something constructive instead, and doing the legwork yourself to assemble sources. WP:RS is there as a defence against inaccuracy, not as a hobby for pedants who solely wish to barricade against the efforts of others. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, i don't believe it is Steampunk, i think it is Neo-Victorian with no link to the history of the genre, as it looks functional and not anachronistic. I also think it adds very little to the article, which does not need just another example, therefore removing it is fixing. The onus on finding sources is on the person adding the "information", dumping uncited opinion into article with the expectation that long-term contributing editors will fix the damage is not what i would call collaboration. Yobmod (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that decorating the interior walls of railway stations in burnished copper is "Neo-Victorian" but not Steampunk, then I suspect you've rather over-estimated the home life of our own dear Queen. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to point out that my distinction between the two is not all in my head: i read it at the Neo-Victorian page, and have been on a tour of a victorian brewery that heavily used copper (including thelight fitting and bar of the attached pub) - hence imo, use of copper as a functional material fits better there (and that page is in need of pictures!), and only becomes Steampunk if used in a non-functional use on anacronistic tech, like a coppper covered iPod. Does that make sense?
If such a distinction doesn't exist, should the pages instead be merged? The current neo-victorian page sounds very steampunky, but is not well sourced, so not sure it is correct.Yobmod (talk) 08:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Band with conflicts of interest

Can people give rational reasons why most bands should not simply be listed at the list of steampunk works, given that they only have passing mentions calling them steampunk? I see it as a purely editorial decision, in that this article is for describing the multiple genres of fashion, literature, film and music that are called steampunk, and listing each and every band or work damages the article unless they illuminate a sourced point about these genres.

As most of the edits to this page are fans or creators of bands/works, should we just merge the list page into this? I think this would be a detriment to wikipedia's coverage of the genre, and result in a poorly written and formatted article, but the constant complaining that editors are somehow bullying minor bands by not alowing them more prominent advertising space on wikipedia is really getting old.

Note, imo, only 4 (at most!) bands need to be mentioned, preferably the 4 most notable, with wikipages of their own that would survive AfD, that would illustrate the only sourced point about steampunk music: that we have no idea what it is, and it has no thematic cohesion yet. (At the moment, this would exclude Clockwork Quartet, Thomas Truax, Dr. Steel).

So do we have a consensus to either: merge, or only keep the most notable examples on this page.Yobmod (talk) 08:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

disambig

There are now 5 (or more?) articles that could be searched for using Steampunk. The genre, list, comic, anthology and magazine. The current old hatnote cannot could not cope with this, so i created a disambig page, but kept this as the main page.Yobmod (talk) 09:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited paragraphs

The final uncited paragraphs i'm moving here. No-one found tags after 2 months, so i think they are OR.



Yobmod (talk) 14:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steampunk technology

What is this section for? Can it exist at all, given its massively WP:OR nature?

As it stands, it appears to be one editor's WP:OR views on which materials are "genuinely steampunk". Even within that, it's anachronistic. Engineered stone is a fine steampunk material, as is engineered wood (plywood was in widespread use for much of the era, albeit not particle board or MDF). Steel was rarely used by the Victorians until fairly late and they favoured cast or wrought iron instead. Not to mention the utter lack of WP:RS.

Now here's the crunch: there's no such thing as steampunk. It's a modern fiction, not a historical reality. So it is ridiculous to describe it as if it were.

Can we describe the materials used by steampunks today? Yes, and we might have to do it twice: Once for the materials they claim to be using (Harris tweed, brass and ivory) and once for the actual materials in use: nylon, painted plastic and celluloid. We cannot say with a straight face that "steampunks don't use synthetic fabrics because they didn't exist" - just look at the level of costuming at any even today! Steampunks are even worse than the SCA for anachronistic fabrics.

Then there's the issue of deliberate anachronism by contemporary steampunks. Show me one steampunk who will turn down a nice shiny piece of titanium! Not to mention the cybergoth crossovers with their plastic hair and circuit-board underwear.

So what is this section about? A consensus description of "favoured materials for the scene"? (which needs sourcing, and toning down from its absolutist position). Or a WP:GUIDE on how to make your own garb? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that consensus existed on what defines fictional steampunk technology, but this is a wiki, so revise away! The section is meant to be generalist and is not meant to say that this is absolutely what may or may not be used, but rather that these are the most common fictional aspects across the genre.
References to individual technology/material use-cases would be good, though a cite would not mean that this is absolutely how technology in the fiction must be used.
Costuming, device modeling, and the SCA is apparently a whole other topic from the stories, since costuming is in large part about fantasy and facades. Underneath that mocked-up punk'd typewriter keyboard facade is still a printed circuit board, and absolutely eliminating it breaks the whole fantasy.
DMahalko (talk) 02:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus on Wikipedia might exist as to what defines "steampunk materials", but that would still be WP:OR and so shouldn't go into the article. The OR is the problem, not consensus over it.
The obvious problem at present is in being unclear as to which interpretation the section follows. Steampunks use nylon and claim it's ivory. Would its inclusion or exclusion in the section here be on the basis of what their garb is actually made of, or what it's pretending to be? We might be able to list the second (as you seem to suggest), but that still needs sourcing.
There was recently a hardcore purge of this article where many agreed literary works were removed as not being "steampunk" unless Disney said they were (or somesuch other passive consumerist bobbins). I'm saddened to see that a section like this thus goes unchallenged, especially when the technological basis behind some of its claims was so shaky. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with AD, and moved the sction here. The real-life application of Steampunk really should be sources even more highly than the fiction. See the design and fashion sections - sources for what constitutes Steampunk exist, so writing a section on the Technology without any sources is not excusable.

Steampunk technology

" The fictional world of steampunk books, cartoons, and movies is generally devoid of advanced materials developed after approximately 1930, but may include certain modern sciences such as genetics, that could have been developed using alternate methods. It may also include what are now discredited sciences such as phlogiston theory.

Real crafted objects and costumes built in the style of steampunk usually have exceptions to these design limits. For example the computer interface shown in this article could not exist without the plastics of the LCD panel, or the integrated circuits that make the LCD function. These details are hidden under a facade that tries to outwardly appear to be authentic to the older technology."

I moved this here, as it has no citations, and appears to be one editors OR in it's entirety.YobMod 08:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

j —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.244.191.249 (talk) 04:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

fantasy?

there's hardly anything mythology-based or supernatural in plain steampunk. if there is, it is indeed crossover steampunk/fantasy. speculative technologies in industrialised settings is deffinetely science fiction. science fiction is also the roots of steampunk, not fantasy. why does about every source say it is fantasy? it is cleary not. it is science fiction. there just happens to be some crossovers with fantasy.· Lygophile has spoken 15:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I think it happens because people associate sci-fi with futuristic settings. But the distinction between fantasy and sci-fi isn't time period, it's magic vs. technology. One steampunk universe that I think includes fantasy, though, is Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials (The Golden Compass, etc.). Would people agree that that's steampunk? Dfrt (talk) 15:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this is not correct: "...although, as mentioned above, the term was coined by Jeter in 1987..."

this clause appears in the first sentence of the second section, but Jeter is not mentioned above... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaydlewis (talk • contribs) 20:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final Fantasy IX

Is anyone concerned with this article familiar with Square-Enix's game Final Fantasy IX?

If so, do they think it warrants inclusion and in depth discussion in this article given it's Steampunk inspiration?

Personally I think it's one of the leading examples of the genre and has thus far received no attention at all. It's also interesting to compare FFIX with the other ten or so games in the series and note the way steampunk and cyberpunk cultures interact stylistically. Please give your thoughts.Thomaskendall11 (talk) 12:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steampunk in World of Warcraft/Video Games

I hadn't realized that there was a big connection in one of the professions in World of Warcraft to steampunk, due to the fact that I hadn't known steampunk was an actual genre... it seems that it makes a pretty big appearance in many games these days, WoW being one of them. The profession of Engineering allows you to create goggles, flying machines, motorcycles, bombs/grenades, and various other contraptions and robotic creatures. I think it could be an interesting addition to this article titled "Steampunk In Video Games" or something like that. I could supply some screenshots for WoW if anyone wanted to try to put that together. DanzerMan (talk) 08:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1595812/20080929/index.jhtml
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steampunk&oldid=314062130"