Jump to content

Talk:Steampunk/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14

Another early specimen

I've just found what may be another early specimen. Ward Moore's short story Dominions Beyond (ISFDB entry for the story: [1]) was originally published in the August 28th, 1954 issue of The Saturday Evening Post. In it, a Victorian gentleman ends up on Mars by accident by means of a magnetic-field reversor in the year 1887. Basically, he's the sponsor of a mad inventor who's just trying to beat the Wrigth Brothers by a few years, but after building his flying machine, the inventor figures that 671,000 miles per hour is a little fast if you only wanna make a quick bounce of a few hundred yards, and when he demonstrates his failed machine to his sponsor...well, you get the idea. In any case, the sponsor accidentaly ending up on Mars goes on to found a veddy Bwiddish colony among the natives of Mars, so when the first modern spacecraft arrives on Mars in 2002, they find natives drinking tea, regularly holding parliamentary elections, and worshipping Queen Victoria as their monarch. All that combined, I'd say that sounds *VERY* steampunk! --79.242.203.134 (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Steampunk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:33, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Steampunk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Steampunk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Mary Shelley?

How is she a precursor for Steampunk? The reference number 7 has no mention of her. She was earlier, not Victorian. She wrote Gothic fiction such as Frankenstein, which did have some science fiction elements. It does not have the technology focus that Wells and especially Verne have. She wrote Frankenstein ten years before Verne was born! Maybe she influenced indirectly via the early Frankenstein movies, but they are very different from her novel.109.57.15.220 (talk) 21:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Because multiple, independent secondary sources have made the comparison between Shelley and Steampunk. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:50, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Personal Vendetta Vandal

Two months ago there was a vandalism: The blanking of 5k characters of extremely well referenced content from a long established Wiki editor, committed by a random user without prior edits. (First vandalism) It was immediately recognized as obvious vandalism and quickly reverted by a moderator. (First automatic moderator reversion) The vandal, given the explanation that more explanation was required, returned with demonstrably false reasoning and blanked again. (second blanking) The original author, noticing the events later, explained the personal vendetta nature of this vandalism to the moderator and the moderator subsequently RedWarned the page. (moderator correction and RedWarn)

Now, two months later, the vandal has returned using VPN and one single prior edit in an attempt to hide their intent, but they were so focused upon vandalism in their written reason, they revealed their own deception:

Recent Vandalism of exact same section: Revert. As mentioned by someone else already, this section is not only poorly written and sourced, but overall unencyclopedic and doesn't have its place in a WP article. Full stop. The rules on WP are clear: in case of recurrent edit conflicts, the original version takes precedence. So either move on, or take it to the talk page. Thank you

Unfortunately for them, the single-minded focus on only this one exact same edit/vandalism and their very knowledge of their 2 month old vandalism, combined with expectation of reversion, makes their deception and intent transparent. However, given a 2 month wait and return, this level of obsessive behavior indicates they will likely continue to update their deception methods over coming months. I suggest that the section be watched closely over a longer period of time by leaving this section on the talk page even after the vandalism has been resolved again. (My apologies for accidentally revealing my identity to a personal enemy and the subsequent trouble it has caused. It won't happen again.) Nemesis75 (talk) 07:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Nemesis75, if they return, report IP to WP:AIV and ask for page semi-protection (if the page is constantly vandalized) at WP:RFPP Ed6767 talk! 16:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Ed6767, thanks a bunch for your help! I don't know all these arbitration systems well, so your assistance has been indispensable. Nemesis75 (talk) 00:26, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Nemesis75, no problem - btw, you might just want to enable Twinkle or my tool RedWarn which makes reporting, reverting and warning much easier in the odd case you run across bad edits or vandals. As a rule of thumb, if it's a blatant vandal, go to WP:AIV, if it's somebody who's messing around in a way that is a bit more specific and might require discussion go to WP:ANI, and if a page is constantly being vandalised, go to WP:RFPP Ed6767 talk! 00:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Original research and reliable sources

Can we remove the maintenance warning at the top of the page yet? The entry was said to contain original research in April 2016 and unreliable sources in July 2017. There have been many edits since. Everything seems properly sourced, so I think the point on original research is moot. If there are still unreliable sources, let's delete (or better yet: replace) them, so we can get rid of the message. Ottens (talk) 16:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Suggested insertions

I'd like to suggest two new insertions.

Under Film there should be an entry for ["Mutant Chronicles"] which has obvious steampunk elements plus sci-fi/alternate history dimension.

Under games I would insert ["Iron Harvest"] which uses an alternate history narrative incorporating the diesel/steampunk style and look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.176.239.102 (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Hmm. I'll take a look through both, but the second one seems like it would be, with the appropriate reliable sources, a better fit on the dieselpunk page. Historyday01 (talk) 13:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Back to the Future 3

How is Back to the Future 3 not mentioned? Crazytonyi (talk) 08:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a source that says it relates to steampunk? Its own article doesn't say anything. Dhtwiki (talk) 04:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC) (edited 22:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC))
Yeah, that's my question too. Unless there is a reliable source saying that the show is steampunk (like a bunch of articles in the case of Disenchantment for example), then it shouldn't be added. --Historyday01 (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steampunk/Archive_13&oldid=1227716494"