Add and Change[edit]

I added and changed a few words to emphasize the speculative nature of some of these statements.

Noclevername 03:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Manifesto[edit]

Anyone got a working like to a mirror of the original manifesto? Artw 04:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This forum post appears to have a partial copy, but I don't actually know. --DocumentN (talk) 05:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yet another non-notable neologism?[edit]

As far as I can tell, "mundane science fiction" is not a standard term but the invention of Geoff Ryman and some friends with a particular literary/philosophical/political take on SF, and it lives mainly on blogs and in a couple of interviews with Ryman. Any notability the term might possess comes from this attempt to start a movement (not unlike the promotion of cyberpunk by Bruce Sterling & company a couple decades ago). But a genre it isn't and as far as I can tell, as a movement it's stalled and all but invisible outside a small circle of enthusiasts. The "manifesto" might rate a mention somewhere, but I doubt that it's worth a whole article. RLetson 05:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And one could hardly claim that it was "founded" by Geoff Ryman. There has always been sf that takes place on Earth, with absolutely no space travel, or aliens, or the like. From the sound of it, a lot of hard sf and cyberpunk could fall under this definition - like Bruce Sterling or Greg Bear. Should this article be merged with Ryman's page?Pooneil 19:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mundane SF clearly has an existance independant from Ryman, others such as Charles Stross have used the term, so I'd be against any merge Artw 21:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC).Reply[reply]
I think there will always be people pedantic enough to try to put SF in a box like this... it may go by different names, but there are always folks trying to take warp travel, time travel, AI, nanotech, and psychic powers out of the SF genre. This is as good a label as any. Get rid of this article, and it'll just pop up again with a different name but basically the same content. -- TomXP411[Talk] 22:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To paraphrase, "Show me da sources." I have heard Ryman talk about the idea, and I don't doubt that it comes up in private discussions or on blogs--I used it myself, in an after-dinner conversation about the Ryman speech I heard. But that's not the same thing as being an established term in general use in commentary, reviews, criticism, journalism, and scholarship. Absent sources that show this as a living term outside a small circle, I'd say it belongs in whatever its actual context is--most likely an article on Geoff Ryman. RLetson 06:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See the guidelines for the upcoming "Mundane" issue of Interzone at [1]. Other references include an interview with Ryman at Locus and a review (of stuff unrelated to Ryman) at Strange Horizons. --Zeborah 10:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That assumes that a single issue of Interzone is "notable."Mzmadmike (talk) 04:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, it doesn't. It assumes that an issue of Interzone is a reliable source that is independent of the subject "Mundane science fiction". Sources do not themselves need to be notable in order to indicate that the topic in question is notable. (Interzone happens to be notable too; no, individual issues aren't notable, but individual issues of the NY Times aren't notable either -- but articles in them can still be used to show that some other topic is notable.) --Zeborah (talk) 04:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Central ideas" makes no positive statements[edit]

At the moment, the list of "Central ideas" is exclusively negative -- it states what this "sub genre" is not, what things found in other science fiction that it avoids using. However, nowhere in the article does it state what mundane SF is in itself, what themes or tropes it does deal with, what kinds of stories it does focus on.

Since I haven't read any mundane SF, I cannot add to the article, but this is a serious defect and a major lack in the article as it stands now.Glaurung quena 02:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it IS primarily a list of don'ts - thing Dogme 95 but for SF Literature. Artw 18:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've added in something to fix this.--Alabamaboy 17:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good edit. Artw 17:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep, that's what I came in here to say, too. How is "mundane SF" SF at all? It sounds like straight fiction to me. And very pragmatic fiction at that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.118.73.116 (talk) 09:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removed bullet points[edit]

I rewrote the list of beliefs as prose and removed some redundant beliefs, such as "interstellar travel is unlikely," which was listed several times. Macrowriter (talk) 17:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Somehow it seems a little more space-travel centric than the original - I might have a quick go at it tonight. Artw (talk) 21:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Addded a little to the article, as well as a link to the original manifesto. One thing I noticed is that the portion of this article in bullets was actually a quote from the manifesto, which we've now rewritten as prose - possibly we should do a copy edit on that and replace any portions of direct quote left in there with a paraphrased version. Alternately we could chop those paragraphs back and start again. Artw (talk) 19:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BRD: It's not Mundane science fiction with a capital M[edit]

There's been some repeated edits to change "mundane" to "Mundane"; I don't know why. In English, we capitalize proper nouns and the start of sentences, and that's about it. If "mundane science fiction" was a proper noun, which it is not, then it would be "Mundane Science Fiction" anyway. I'm putting it back to "m". Per WP:BRD, please comment here rather than repeat this change. --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per the sources it's capitalized. Think SF that follows the posits of the Mundane Manifesto rather than SF that is mundane. Artw (talk) 19:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Possibly we need to rewrite or restructure a little to make this clearer. Artw (talk) 19:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Note I said comment here rather than repeat the change, per WP:EW. This issue hasn't reached consensus.)
I think MOS trumps source use. Many fads and movements have supporters that like to puff the importance of their view with Capital Letters. It's still not English grammar, nor MOS, until it's recognized as a proper noun. (Sources influence article titles, but that's not the issue here.)
--A D Monroe III (talk) 16:38, 27 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note that if we want to quote the source, we may actually do so: when using the capital M, put it in quotes, such as "Mundane science fiction". This shows WP is using the phrase as others use it (the sources), not just employing poor grammar. We probably shouldn't do that for all uses, tho. --A D Monroe III (talk) 18:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rethinking: after encountering similar issues elsewhere, I come to realize that WP:MOSCAPS can be said to support the capital "M": words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in sources are treated as proper names and capitalized in Wikipedia. Now, "Mundane science fiction" is not used as a proper noun, since only the "M" is capitalized, but I'm no longer sure that matters. The only point of "proper noun" in MOS is its capitalization; the only significant point is about following the sources' use. So, reviewing the sources here... I'm even more confused. Many capitalize the "M", but some don't, and some capitalize all three words (as if was a proper noun). Sigh. So, I'm just leaving the article as is. But if someone else wants to sort this out and "fix" in whatever manner, that's okay by me. --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mundane science fiction. 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: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:53, 5 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Examples?[edit]

Are there examples of works of mundane science fiction? From the description of the characteristics, it sounds a lot like the films Gravity and The Martian, but do they count? InsuranceAgentof Satan (talk) 22:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This might help [2]. Artw (talk) 04:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some of Arthur C. Clarke's novels would be at least close to this. I'm thinking of Imperial Earth especially, or The Fountains of Paradise except that that one had a brief fly-by from an extra-terrestrial drone. If I remember correctly.PopSci (talk) 19:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unbalanced[edit]

The article subject might not be unnotable enough for wholesale deletion, but it strongly comes off as having been written by MSF proponents, and it probably needs to be rewritten for neutrality or balance.

This article has only a few sources that aren't partisan. Do they really verify the implied claim made by the lead sentence - namely that it is an established subgenre? Shouldn't we rewrite the entire article to maybe something Mundane science fiction is a subgenre proposed by... or perhaps MSF is a movement that seeks to focus on the "science" over the "fiction"... and then note the inroads it has made in the community.

This article lists over 700 incoming links ("What links here") that give off the impression the term is entrenched in the community. When we exclude the two templates ((Film genres)) and ((Science fiction)) however, less than one percent of them remains (=10).

I'm also asking the question "Does MSF really merit inclusion in the two templates ((Film genres)) and ((Science fiction))?

information Note:Template talk:Film genres#Under discussion

information Note:Template talk:Science fiction#Under discussion

Discuss. CapnZapp (talk) 06:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Based on what I'm reading, it seems the author(s) of this article are trying to convince the reader that the genre is real. To me, the descriptions make it out to be an alternate name for hard science fiction. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Firstly, the Reception section is huge and unbalanced. It should be cut down to something comparable to similar pages, preferably by someone who knows the subject. For comparison, see cyberpunk, which MSF in no way compares to. On the Elsevier academic database I can find over 200 peer-reviewed scholarly articles in international journals on cyberpunk, and not one for MSF. Secondly, the whole list of Authors needs reliably, notable citations, i.e., not someone in an essay or prelude speculating. At the moment, it's just kidnapping other authors. Philip K. Dick as mundane? With off-world colonies (prob. not in this solar system)? You cannot retrofit and artificially create a entire genre through a 'Manifesto', some essays, a magazine issue and a short stories collection. I am fine with the subject meriting an entry. If someone who knows the subject does not take a hatchet to it, or explain why the Reception and Authors list can be unbalanced for this subgenre and not for other entries, I probably will. And that's said by someone who's actually living MSF. Johncdraper (talk) 20:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Exactly. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am right now adding relevant templates as polite warnings. Feel free to add more. Within 36-72 hours, unless someone tidies everything up, I will enforce the templates. Johncdraper (talk) 16:16, 25 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, we're already discussing here at Talk, so the time for templates or warnings has kinda passed... Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I realize that. I am being nice and polite and agf and not biting potential newbies. I am also only signalling my own intent. Feel free to hatchet away yourself, but my position is that adding the templates and providing 36-72 hrs notice first may encourage the page owner/whoever responsible to better the page and themselves as a WP editor in the process. Johncdraper (talk) 16:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, since a discussion is ongoing, I'd like to ask you to do nothing until it is concluded. (Not that anyone seems to be defending the current state of the article, but still) After all, templating is never the polite way. Anyway, as for specific actions, I suggest the article is drastically pruned down to just a stub outlining the movement started by Ryman, the opposition it has garnered, the (few?) inroads into established sf society it has managed, and possibly a few more bits and bons (that can be shown to be notable)... and MSF removed from the ((Film genres)) and ((Science fiction)) templates. If you ask me, there's a lot that needs to go, no need to template each part. Since we agree to wait a courtesy period before making changes, why don't you spend the time by telling me if there's any other portions you'd like to keep? CapnZapp (talk) 18:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's nothing wrong with templating during discussion, especially since everyone participating so far is supportive of massive changes to the article. I would prefer whatever can be merged be merged into hard science fiction, and "mundane science fiction" be added as an alternate way to refer to it. As far as I can tell, that much is accurate. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:07, 25 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
CapnZapp Templates are a norm for conveying messages on Wikipedia. The ones I added are fact-based and so do not need a discussion. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Template_index. Some might argue the [citation needed] template is Wikipedia. My advice is to go with your suggestion, but to a start-class page, not a stub. A Google scholar search suggests some scholarly work on MSF. See https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22mundane+science+fiction%22&btnG=. My advice is to cut the Reception section to 30% of what it is now and delete or cite the Authors' section. On templates, my advice is no to ((Film genres)) but yes to ((Science fiction)). I am a neutral editor on this page, here because of a request for help on WP:SF, and I can only dedicate a limited part of my time to this problem. While I may be nice, and am happy that everyone here is nice, I am here as a catalyst to improve the page. To help, I have set a time period, after which the templates will be enforced. I will not just cut; I will seek to improve, using the Google Scholar search. But I would prefer regular editors to this page, or basically anyone competent other than me, to do this instead of me. Johncdraper (talk) 20:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On templates: Can assume "no" means "agree to remove it"? As for ((Science fiction)) I definitely think Mundane needs to be removed from Outline - that's far too overarching and core a concept to host something as minor as this. As for sub-genres, if we end up agreeing to describe MSF as a movement (or similar) rather than a subgenre, I would argue it should be removed there as well. Had there been a section (of the template) about movements (or philosophies) within science fiction, MSF might merit a mention there, but until there is, my conclusion is that no direct linkage from the template to here would be a wholly reasonable outcome to our discussion. CapnZapp (talk) 09:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, no means no to on the film template outline. Remove it. I would like to reserve judgment on the ((Science fiction)) issue until I see the revised page. Johncdraper (talk) 10:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On merging: I would guess that if we look at MSF as a subgenre, a merge might be the best solution. But is it? Isn't it better described as a movement? If so, keeping a stand alone article that's linked to from Hard science fiction (and a few other places, not including the templates) might be reasonable? CapnZapp (talk) 09:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, this is what I propose. Out of the goodness of our hearts, we do our best to make the page standalone, as a SF subgenre, agf, being as generous as possible but enforcing [citation needed] etc. templates. We do this within the next 50 or so hours. Then, we take a long, hard look at the result over 24 hours and decide whether it really is a subgenre or not. Then, if it fails that smell test, we redo ((Science fiction)). Right now, the article is a mess. It does not look like it merits anything in particular. I would like to see a decently presented article before deciding. Johncdraper (talk) 10:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The State of the Art of the Major Revision

The revision is ongoing. I have done much housekeeping and tidying, and removed MSF from the film template, as the page revision history shows. What I propose to do now is to re-read Calvin's 2009 MSF 101, then take the hatchet to the Responses and impact section. Much of what happened is in the blogosphere, which Wikipedia is not that keen on citing; I have already overridden one auto-warning. Are there any comments before I continue? Johncdraper (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't see a problem. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Are there any comments before I continue?" seems to suggest you are done, but your continued edits show you aren't. I've added the Under Construction template to the page for you to remove when you really are done, to avoid any confusion. It goes without saying that after removing the template, allow at least a couple of days before assuming no comments are forthcoming. Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 12:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, still not done. I intend to take another pass at the Responses and impact section. Thanks for the template! Johncdraper (talk) 12:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're welcome. CapnZapp (talk) 14:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Issues to consider/resolve:

- "and subgenre of science fiction, usually hard science fiction" The core issue is: why do we (Wikipedia) feel the need to distinguish this as its own sf subgenre? If we can't find good sources, we should define MSF simply as a movement, since that's what our sources actually tell us.

See this, this, and Calvin, here. Is that sufficient or not? Johncdraper (talk) 15:52, 28 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

- Background: are we sure the precursors are to MSF specifically, as opposed to, say, hard science fiction. We should not repurpose sources that aren't discussing MSF specifically.

Okay, so this is Calvin. Johncdraper (talk) 15:52, 28 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

- Style and Ethos: to be checked for bias, that is: if the sources from MSF itself, the section needs to be rewritten to make it clear we're describing the movement's self-definition (and the follow-up task is to prune the section to an appropriate weight). Other sources need to be weighed for importance/notability.

Yeah. It's over-reliant on quotes, too.Johncdraper (talk) 15:52, 28 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

- My impression of the Reception section: MSF trying to move existing sci fi from the genre it was considered as, to instead "belong" to MSF. For instance Interzone devoting an issue to MSF seems like a legit source. Some MSF proponent "claiming" Gattaca for the proposed subgenre feels much dodgier. The fact it's possible to find the occasional essayist that considers Gattaca MSF doesn't change the fact Gattaca is considered to belong to the "dystopia" and "hard sf" genres (judging by our Gattaca article) unless we deem the shift is significant (not limited to that one commenter). CapnZapp (talk) 14:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah. Happy to further trim. Johncdraper (talk) 15:52, 28 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Launch Status Check

Johncdraper (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC) What I am slightly concerned about is that this page is beginning to look better organized and more credible than New Wave science fiction... Said the Ticktockman. Johncdraper (talk) 18:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have removed the 'Under construction' template. I would like some consensus on removing the final two templates. Johncdraper (talk) 08:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following assumes "MSF is a movement" is uncontroversial but that "MSF is its own subgenre" is still debatable. Assume all of the below ends with a question mark even when it doesn't.

  1. I like the phrasing "Describing the context for the emergence of MSF". Do we consider Cokinos to be influential enough - and neutral enough - to be quoted in favor of MSF as a subgenre? (No changes suggested, I just want us to be able to weigh the voices in favor of "MSF should be considered a subgenre")
  2. The BBC source only discusses MSF in the specific context of Montgomery quoting professor Luckhurst, who specifically only labels it a movement, not a subgenre.
  3. The claim "The goals of MSF were predated by sociologist Wayne Brekhus in 2000" is not verified by the Bruce H source (and the Brekus source is first-party, only confirming the existence of his manifesto.)
  4. Do we really consider Futurismic or its call against fantasy, horror, etc notable? Even if we do, we need an archived version of its guidelines, since the current version does not discuss "mundane sf" as a concept. And even then, just because a website says no thank you to time travel that's a weak and spurious argument for "mundane sf is its own accepted subgenre".
  5. The History Origins section is fine. Note it basically invalidates the previous Wikipedia contributors' desire for Mundane SF to be its own (accepted) subgenre, since its founder himself specifically calls it a joke.
  6. There are three sources for the Mundane as a subgenre claim. The first one is first party and should be removed. As for the others, the main problem with the entire article (and the cause for my ((Unbalanced)) tag) is that it willfully avoids due weight. To me it's blindingly obvious that just because two sources named "Book publishing 101 : inside information to getting your first book or novel published" and "The handy literature answer book : an engaging guide to unraveling symbols, signs and meanings in great works" claims MSF to be a subgenre doesn't make it so. In fact, both these titles ring the alarm bell, as being just about as far away from authorative as can be! Contrast with us having established professors or chief editors or even reference dictionaries claiming MSF is a subgenre, and explaining how it is different from other sci fi subgenres! Unless y'all can convince me otherwise, I say these sources are balderdash.
  7. The rest of the section is fine (since having partial MSF proponents define their movement is fine).
  8. The Reception section is certainly exhaustive, and I can understand the second cleanup tag (and its implied question "shouldn't we prune this?"). But it's not that I actively need to support removing things here. Removing ((Summarize section)) is therefore fine by me, pruning or no pruning.
  9. Exceptions: we should definitely weed out things like the "Related Genres" statement. Remember the quote is from a MSF proponent and/or a non-notable poet! Just because Calvin R says so definitely does not make it so, and its a difference between us saying he says so, and the current phrasing where we say so (using Calvin R as our source)!
  10. the article contains zero criticism against the movement! Therefore the ((Unbalanced)) tag must stay. At minimum there needs to be voices saying "we don't need this new subgenre when we already have subgenres A, B and C." At best, there should be authoritative voices concluding that "yes, we do, and here is why mundane should live alongside subgenres A, B, and C".

In my view, the claim "Mundane is a subgenre" is at best highly controversial. But to be honest, I find the claim to be supported by trash sources. If these sources are the best the wiki editors in favor of MSF can find, I would assume it is definitely not established yet. One or two mainstream inclusions does not change this. Not yet, anyway.

In other words, we have an example where editors use Wikipedia as a vanguard. That's plain inappropriate: Wikipedia follows, it does not lead. It's WP:TOOSOON to include "mundane" as a genre as far as I can see.

Hope that helps CapnZapp (talk) 09:27, 30 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  1. I think so.
  2. Sure.
  3. That's Calvin. I've made that clear.
  4. Calvin again. I've made that clear.
  5. MSF became more serious than Ryman.
  6. Calvin's okay by me. I agree the other two sources suck. I now use 'postulated subgenre' on the page.
  7. Okay.
  8. Template gone.
  9. I made it clear this was Calvin.
  10. I could not find much criticism. Feel free to add it.

I am fine with MSF being taken off the SF Template as a genre. It didn't hack it for me before, and even with me being as nice as possible towards it, it doesn't hack it after. Care to advise on New Wave page?Johncdraper (talk) 10:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The more I search the web for the answer to "what separates mundane sci fi from other genres such as hard sf?" the more I realize the damage done by previous Wikipedia editors. Basically every source uses Wikipedia to "prove" mundane is a real subgenre. Fixing this article was way overdue. I'll make it more clear that mundane is only a subgenre proposed by the MSF proponents, that there exists no real definition to separate it from other subgenres, and I'll remove it from the templates. CapnZapp (talk) 06:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Removed the last tag. If there is no criticism (in sources we can use) there isn't. The Reception section will have to suffice. CapnZapp (talk) 06:22, 1 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Spoke to soon. Did you read Calvin's Mundane SF 101? He mentions the manifesto causing a controversy: "critics and criticism were swift and ranged from the well considered to the vitriolic", naming at least two critics (Ian McDonald and Rudy Rucker). This article truly was biased before I found it. CapnZapp (talk) 06:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I managed to track down Kelly's Asimov article. It's published in the March 2008 issue, not the January one. Every source Google can find is wrong, blindly using Wiki as its source. Had to check the ISFDB[3] to find the real issue. CapnZapp (talk) 06:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quality[edit]

I would consider this article for a quality upgrade to B-class now, but being a major contributor, will leave that assessment to others. CapnZapp (talk) 19:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just to note the other major recent contributor applied a C rating to our work. CapnZapp (talk) 18:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I rated this C, mainly because I'm not entirely sure about the subject, still. I'm a WP:SF member, which in my understanding means I can work on project articles and upgrade them, including by rating, up to and including B, with higher requiring peer review. I would consider rating this a B myself but am not an academic expert on this topic, i.e., I don't research SF, therefore I am erring on the side of caution. Nonetheless, Autorater 2.61 gives this a B at 33.7%, meaning it could be a B. Given the effort both of us put into this one and your assessment, I am considering upgrading it. Still, this is a Low priority page for WP:SF. Johncdraper (talk) 20:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, I have now B'd this, to reflect the hard work and massive checking we put into it and the WP:SF and Auto-Rater guidance. It would be weird if this rose to GA faster than New Wave, but maybe it deserves to, as an object lesson in how to finally clean up a wonky page. Johncdraper (talk) 12:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
information Note: I would have been fine with leaving the Quality as Start-class until such time a neutral third-party were to make an independent assessment. I certainly do not see B (or C) class as a mere stepping-stone towards GA. Many articles remain B (or C) class for years and years, and that's absolutely fine with me. That said, I obviously have no problem with a B-class assessment. Regards CapnZapp (talk) 18:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Certainly agree. IMHO, this is not worth trying to promote above Top priority articles. The WP:SF Top and Assessment backlog is enormous already. Johncdraper (talk) 20:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

associated writers/artists[edit]

Thank you for your good-faith addition, OnBeyondZebrax.

However, we must be mindful that this page is likely the most visible source on MSF (by far, I'd reckon). Any artist mentioned here will, whether we intend it or not, be associated with mundane SF and/or the movement. And we need a source for that.

That is, just because you or I find Joe-Bob McWriter to write stories that fit 100% into MSF does not mean we should mention Joe-Bob anywhere on the page. Only if we have a good source making that association would this not be OP/SYNTH.

That is, not only the actual words, but also the "invisible" associations and assumptions our article can "cause" in a reader must be of encyclopedic standards.

In the present case, I urge you watch the Amazon series made from Stålenhag's works. You should pretty quickly find that there's some pretty non-mundane aspects there. (Spoiler alert! Anti-Gravity! Time travel! Body swapping! Alternate universes! You Name It!) In fact, I would say Stålenhag's brilliance is in presenting the very-much-not-mundane, as mundane. Whatever genre that is, isn't MSF.

(But don't quote me on that, my opinion is not a WP:RS...) CapnZapp (talk) 11:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for holding the line on WP:RS. If the Stålenhag stayed in (based on my non-RS feeling that the illustration had a mundane, everyday mood, then pretty soon there could be a case of "Wikiality" (wiki-reality).

Let's imagine some novice journalist sees Stålenhag's illustration in Wikipedia article, asserts that Stålenhag is an "MSF-associated artist". Then, to counter your reversion, I add the novice journalist's article in the "North Albany News Digest" (fictional small paper). Wikitialty averted!OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 18:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is Stephen Colbert who developed joke term "wikiality": https://www.techopedia.com/definition/28157/wikiality OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 19:00, 20 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

relation to "cli-fi"[edit]

The newly added section does not explain to the reader what, if any, relation between the two proposed genres are. Just us editors going "climate sci-fi is obviously a mundane type of sci-fi" is original research. Now, I should state right off the bat I don't have access to the reference listed. I did find this, and there is no mention of MSF in relation to "cli-fi".

Please verify the claim "cli-fi is related to MSF" that is implied by listing "cli-fi" in the related genres section, User:OnBeyondZebrax. Remember there is a decent probability MSF isn't recognized by the creators of this other proposed genre, which would then obviate any link between the two. Thank you CapnZapp (talk) 09:08, 14 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed you added yet another proposed genre to the related genres section, User:OnBeyondZebrax, and once more, the supplied source does not even mention MSF. Now, if you do not either engage here on talk or source the implied claim that the genres are related I am going to revert you. Hope it doesn't come to that. CapnZapp (talk) 21:11, 17 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have tentatively removed the cli fi and lab lit proposed genres because we need to have a discussion about how to present that information. I am NOT opposed to Wikipedia briefly covering those (provided the references establish notability etc); I am specifically talking about mentioning them HERE, in Related Genres. Why? Because that implies the genres are related to MSF! While on the surface it seems obvious (climate and lab fiction sounds really down to earth, or "mundane") there are two problems: One, this article isn't about mundane science fiction in general, it is specifically about a proposed genre that just happens to be called "Mundane science fiction". Two, without any sources corroborating this, it is original research to suggest the relation. Had this article been an umbrella article about all "mundane" sci fi, I could buy the "don't need to source sky is blue claims" argument and allowed for these related genres, but as it stands we need to source every claim "this genre is related to the MSF movement". Doing anything else is, as I said, OR, and moreover, it can be interpreted as elevating the importance of MSF with no real support. (Remember, this article previously fell foul of uncritical claims from MSF proponents).

So I have removed those paragraphs, pending sources that verify the connection, or, at the very least, a discussion here on talk. And yes, this is a revert, User:OnBeyondZebrax, except I didn't want to mess with unrelated edits and found it easier to just edit the article. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 09:47, 19 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Thanks for your explanation and comments. I agree article is not "anything that seems mundane-ish gets to go here", as then any new genre that meets MSF criteria could be added. You're right, I need to find a reliable source saying "cli-fi is related to MSF" or "cli-fi is a subgenre of MSF". Thanks for keeping things WP:RS compliant. That said, I think I could put climate fiction in the See also, since all it is doing is saying "you may want to check out this other article."OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 18:39, 20 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Categories