Jump to content

Talk:List of apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction

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

Trying to be helpful

[edit]

I entered some movies in the other day that were in fact apocalyptic movies, such as Armageddon and Deep Impact. I don't see why these to movies are not placed in along with a lot of other syfy movies out there. This data base is lacking a lot of good movies that actually pertain to this subject when other films and such on here are really hard to know whether or not its apocalyptic or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.52.44 (talk) 22:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Those would be disaster films, not apocalyptic (the world isn't destroyed), and they are already listed there.MartinezMD (talk) 00:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

[edit]

The Road as an asteroid impact??

[edit]

While readers of the novel will know that Cormac McCarthy was very specific not to name the disaster to destroy Earth as it was, it does mention that the Father sees the flash. In an asteroid impact everything would have been destroyed in a large radius, and that flash would probably have been his last thought.

More likely it could be a nuclear explosion in a nearby major city, in which case sufficient distance could be established. Nuclear winter being a major fear of many people during the time Cormac McCarthy has been alive might also be the cause of the dust. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.65.197.20 (talk) 08:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its all speculation, it beliongs is unspecified.Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its an appocalypse jim, but not as we know it

[edit]

Its time for that question again, what is this page actualy about? it seems that yet again (Aswell as still) we have oddles of stuff that has bog all to do with hte end of man or civilisation.Slatersteven (talk) 19:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete I, Robot why isn't it apocalyptic? From the article:

Apocalypticism is the religious belief that there will be an apocalypse, a term which originally referred to a revelation of God's will, but now usually refers to belief that the world will come to an end time very soon, even within one's own lifetime.

in the film, as far as I remember, the humankind was about to extinct, pretty much fits apocalyptic idea. I'd glad to listen to others' opinions. Userpd (talk) 19:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted I Robot becasue i the film the Human race is not nearly wiped out. In nfact its abouot saving Hu8mans from themsleves. "some humans must be sacrificed" and "some freedoms must be surrendered" as "you charge us with your safekeeping, yet despite our best efforts, your countries wage wars, you toxify your earth, and pursue ever more imaginative means of self-destruction". But no where does it say that Humans are on the virge of extinction. Oddly AI is not on the list as far as I can seeSlatersteven (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read what I said? Apocalypticism (according to article) isn't just "all humans are wipped out" but rather an imminent danger that is about to happen to humankind (or to any other kind of animals? Well, it'd be probably called differently, though).
So for resolving this issue, let's listen to what other people say, don't delete until then.Userpd (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And no such danger exists in the film. "in the film, as far as I remember, the humankind was about to extinct," So to rephrase what I wrote no the human race is not about to extinct". You might be thinking of A.I. Artificial Intelligence. Slatersteven (talk) 19:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did you watch the film? There was a danger after VIKI became self-dependent and other robots started obeying its orders. One of the order was to eliminate everyone who will make a danger to VIKI itself, isn't why it was destroyed by the protagonist? Its existence endangered the public peace Userpd (talk) 21:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But an Apocalypse is the "belief that the world will come to an end time very soon, even within one's own lifetime'", not "the world will have its peace disturbed". Its about teh end of the world or civilisation, not things getting very bad.Slatersteven (talk) 22:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then what Terminator series are doing on the list (it features almost the same, humans would be either enslaved or killed)? So you're wrong, in apocalypticism it's not necessarily the world to be ended "very soon", just like in Resident Evil, the world would be fine, while the humankind is going to extinct or be on the edge of the extinction. Userpd (talk) 23:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The entire Terminator series is based upon an apocalypse of machine over man. The first movie shows partial scenes of the destruction and is the prequel to the paradox that leads to it.--MartinezMD (talk) 23:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note, that if you're deleting The Faculty, then you should delete The Invasion as well. As they both are narrating about AI takeover, with starting invasion in the beginning and ending by the end of a film. Userpd (talk) 21:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will have a look, but you might be right. It depends on the level of threat to mankind. I have now had a look and I woiuld say that yes they both need deleting. There is a lot of material on this page, and dispite efforts in the past some bad examples have slipt thru.Slatersteven (talk) 22:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Before you'll delete this, I could bring a lot of other films, which according to your words should be deleted, but the people who added it (it wasn't just one single person), assumed that these films fit the list, so maybe it really fits the list? As for "The Invasion" its general idea similar to The Happening (2008 film)'s, with difference that in happening there was a disease which was just killing people, and in the Invasion an alien form that was turning people under itself. In both cases there was a danger for the humankind, apocalyptic danger (worldwide). Userpd (talk) 11:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further on I, Robot - I agree it is NOT an apocalyptic film. The humans are not being wiped out; they are to be taken over by the robots, which is a different scenario - dystopian, not apocalyptic, and is found on this list.--MartinezMD (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Distopia, according to the article, describes "in which society has degraded into a repressive, controlled state. A dystopia is often characterized by an authoritarian or totalitarian form of government. It usually features different kinds of repressive social control systems, a lack or total absence of individual freedoms and expressions and a state of constant warfare or violence.", which hardly have to do with the aforementioned film, well with the same success it can be applied for every apocalyptic, cybernetic revolt film that is currently on the list. As for disagreeing, do you think the film 9 should be deleted from the list as well? And so should be The Invasion, and a lot of other films, this is all according to your words. Userpd (talk) 22:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And please, judge according to the article's definition of the term "apocalyptic", as was said, Apocalypticism isn't necessarily about the majority of the humankind to be wiped out. Userpd (talk) 22:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And in the film I robot an AI attmepts to impose a robot lead dicatorship (for the good of mankind) in which freedom will be removed. In which decent will be met by violence (or in your own words) "One of the order was to eliminate everyone who will make a danger to VIKI itself". I thinhk thnat prey well fits the description of Distopian. Again if a film features the fall of man then its apocalyptic if it does ot then its not.Slatersteven (talk) 22:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you realize that the film could fit both terms of Apocalypticism and Dystopia, like film Doomsday? And I, robot does imply the idea when the humankind may fall, but it just wasn't shown as the threat was destroyed too soon, if that's what you're saying - then yes, their fault is that they didn't show that in the film. An assumption isn't enough, I suppose. And note what title says: «(apocalyptic wars between humans and technology)», war for surviving, domination of certain group over another. Which was pretty much in the film, even if on local level, so as you see it fits the term "war between". But like I said, an assumption that it could spread isn't enough? But that's ridiculous, if the film fits the definition, why shouldn't it be placed on the list? The difference with Terminator film series is that developments in "I, Robot" didn't develop into large-scale forms. Userpd (talk) 11:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A susgestion has been made below do you agree to it? By the way no assumptions are not good enough, that would by OR.Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where below? I don't see a suggestion concerning this film below. Also, you didn't answer above. Userpd (talk) 17:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The susgestion is that we only include material that has been called either apocalyptic of post apocalyptic by RS. In other words we do not interperate for our sleves (or make assumptions) about critiera we allow RS to do it. By the way I did answer your point, no assumptions are not acceptable as they breach the rules on WP:OR. We cannot assume that anything will develope after the events of the film, becasue that is open to how any given individual makes those assumptions. As you your other point "apocalyptic wars between humans and technology" is what it says not "wars between humans and technology" indead the remed out part of the section states quite specificaly that "please only add movies that are actually apocalyptic or post-apocalyptic, not just any cybernetic revolt story". The key is not that its a war, its that its an apocalyptic war. Otherside this page would be called "A list of SF stories in which people die a lot".Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who told you it was my assumption? This assumption comes clear from the film itself, no need to research, just read the plot, VIKI was taking over, but then it was stopped. So what research are you talking about? I didn't made up things out of nothing. And don't throw links, here I wanted to hear from you why do you think it's not apocalyptic, then I brought up a definition from article, where it says that an imminent danger for the humankind is apocalypticism, thus fits the criteria to be put on the list. I'd agree if that film didn't feature an imminent danger for the humankind. E.g. system failure in a certain factory, where robots began behaving uncontrollable with danger only to local people around. That film isn't about it. Userpd (talk) 20:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No its not, I did not make that assumption, in fact as I see man has clearly achieved a high level of success, is not on the verge of apocalypse (well no more then in say Syriana, a film that also has lots of deaths) and that the AI is mistaken, man does not need saving from himself but from his servants. So why is your assumption more valid then mine? This is why we use RS and not OR, to avoid such this kind of assumption conflict. So I will ask again, are you willing to obey by an agreement were we will only include material that is called apocalyptic by RS?. Aslo your quote says "...refers to belief that the world will come to an end time very soon..." not a possibilty an actuality, not it might but that it will happen. No where in the film doe it ever say that the apocalyse is an inevitability, not even that the AI thinks it is.Slatersteven (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then what AI wanted? It started attacking people, surely it wanted to conquer them. Like in Terminator series, but didn't succeed. Userpd (talk) 23:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well since the meaning of the criteria is being disputed, the local step would be to require reliable sources that classified each of works of fiction listed is either in the apocalyptic or post-apocalyptic genre. If there are no reliable source, then the entry must be removed per Wikipedia:Verifiability. —Farix (t | c) 22:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fair to me. I'll start looking (and deleting) in about 24 hours.Slatersteven (talk) 22:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was gOing to go thru the list (slowly I have other things to do) and either put in a source (even a bad one, it will suffice for now) or a CN tag. As such I wuld like then page un-protected.Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having just tried to find one, I believe you will be hard pressed to find a reliable source saying the movie is apocalyptic (I do find them saying it is dystopian). I think it will ultimately removed from the list. I'm not sure why you interpret this movie as apocalyptic Userpd. It is attempted-dystopian (the robots don't succeed) and not apocalyptic (even if they won, it would be them in charge, not necessarily destroying humans, but rather managing them like parents). We can give it another few days, but please find a reliable source or let the subject go so we can move on.--MartinezMD (talk) 00:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think what he is say is (and do correct me if I am wrong) that the AI thinks there will be an apocalypse and so decides to prevent it. Even if that is the case (and as the AI fails and there is no apocalypse at best the AI is mistaken) it does not make the film an apocalypse film. As I have said before films shouod be about apoccalypses, not preventing them.Slatersteven (talk) 12:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What you both are trying to say is that fault of the film it didn't show the apocalyptic atmosphere (most places of the world in ruins, most of humans are engaged in war etc, in a large-scale), as for sources, follow the first link and you will see that the film was listed as "apocalyptic". But since I said that I'd glad to listen to others' opinions, I won't object anymore, see yourself, but I still insist that the term Apocalypticism doesn't include in itself that the most people should be dead. And there was a war between them (short-lasted), which fits the section's title: «apocalyptic wars between humans and technology». Userpd (talk) 23:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They don't discuss the movie other than to mention it is made by the same director (Proyas) who made the film Knowing (film), which is the apocalyptic movie they are actually talking about. He has also done other films noir, like Dark City and The Crow.--MartinezMD (talk) 23:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok ok, like I said the apocalyptic atmosphere wasn't high enough (if it'd spread a bit wider, like in the film Happening, where the east coast of the U.S. was in the affected zone). Userpd (talk) 00:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So not to beat a dead horse, but are we okay removing I,Robot from this list and filing this discussion to the archives? It's gotten a little long. --MartinezMD (talk) 03:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
>But since I said that I'd glad to listen to others' opinions, I won't object anymore, see yourself, but I still insist that the term Apocalypticism doesn't include in itself that the most people should be dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Userpd (talk • contribs) 03:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding A Sound of Thunder (film) which features post-apocalypticism, no doubt. Feel free to add a reasonable objection, if you watched the film. Userpd (talk) 03:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No objection here. I think if you want to split hairs someone could argue it is a narrowly-averted apocalypse, but it is clearly featured as a possible event.--MartinezMD (talk) 05:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Book to add

[edit]

"Light of the Ancient Sun", 2017, by Patrick Sarver. 417 years after plague wiped out 99.9% of human race a roughly 13th century level culture in Missouri finds hints of a vast storehouse of knowledge, and travels through a weird world of cultures in search.





Edit request from TheFarix, 11 July 2010

[edit]

{{editprotected}} Replace: 

{{article issues
 | refimprove=November 2008
 | cleanup=March 2007
}}

With: 

{{article issues
 | refimprove=November 2008
 | cleanup=March 2007
 | original research=July 2010
}}

Reason: Meany of the entries on this list appears to have been added based on the individual editors' opinion of what constitutes apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction. When editors insert their own analytic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about a work of fiction's subject mater, they are engaging in original research. Any interpretation of the primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Editors should not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source. (WP:PRIMARY)

—Farix (t | c) 13:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would support his edit.Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request 2 from TheFarix, 11 July 2010

[edit]

{{editprotected}} The tagging of all citations to the IMDb with {{dubious|date=July 2010}}

Reasoning: Do to the fact that the IMDb is a user-submitted resource, it is not a reliable source from which to support analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about whether a work of fiction is apocalyptic or post-apocalyptic fiction. —Farix (t | c) 13:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

—Farix (t | c) 13:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Im wouold agree, I am only using them at this time to establish that there might be a reson for something being on the page. By the way what can we use as RS (DVD covers?).Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than sticking a large number of maintenance templates on this article, would it not be better to start a discussion about how to clean the article up? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does the source have to use the word appocalypse (and varients) or can we uise sources that say end of the world (I would say yes)?Slatersteven (talk) 16:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An apocalypse doesn't necessarily equate to the end of an age or the end of the world, especially with fiction set during or after a cataclysmic event. So trying to make the connection would borderline on WP:SYN. So I would suggest that the reliable source must be explicit that a work of fiction is apocalyptic or post-apocalyptic fiction. —Farix (t | c) 17:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough.Slatersteven (talk) 18:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source: Wild Harbour

[edit]

From British Book News: "First published in 1936, apocalyptic novel about man's survival in a world destroyed by war"; three Google hits for people referring to it as apocalyptic: [1] ; [2] ; [3] -- Levana Taylor (talk) 15:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

End of the world

[edit]

The following are all listed in the 1st edition of the encyclopedia of SF as end of the world stories. Does this count as RS? I havwe left out what appear to be factual books that inspired end of the world stories.

The last Man (De Grainville)

The last Man (Shelly)

The Coversation of Eiros and Charmion (poe), Bit iffy that but if its RS.

Moega (Flammarion)

The Time Machine, the Star, A vision of Judgement, the World Set Free, All Aboard for Ararat, Mind at the end of a Tether (Wells)

Last and First Man (Stapleton)

Olga Romanoff (Griffiths)

Underground Man (De Tarde)

The Purple Cloud (Shiel)

The House on the Boarderland (Hodgson), Also in my opinion pushing the definition a bit.

The Last Generation (Flecker)

Lord of the world(Benson)

The Seconod Deluge (Serviss)

Nordenholts Millions(Conningham)

Actuialy I will stop this for now, this would be a very long list.Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction would be a reliable source for such analysis if the source directly states that the work is apocalyptic or post-apocalyptic fiction. In the event that an earlier edition of The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction labels a work as apocalyptic or post-apocalyptic fiction but later editions doesn't, then that should be noted. —Farix (t | c) 17:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These are in in the section "end of the world". But I assumje you are saying that it actualy has to say a given story is about thye end of the world not just have it as an example of an end of the world story witout calling it such.Slatersteven (talk) 17:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At this time only I can only find the following actualy called "Apocalypses"

A vision of Judgement, H G Wells

This is referd to as an "apocalyptic satire" on Page 195.

Greener that you think, Ward More

Judgement day, L Spague De Camp

Cat's Cradle Kurt Vonnegut Jnr

Dr Strangelove, Peter George.

All these are called apocallyptic on page 196.Slatersteven (talk) 18:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DVD cover

[edit]

The DVD of The Last Battle (Luc Besson) calls it a "Exploration of post-Apocalyptic Survival" RS or not?Slatersteven (talk) 23:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what word will we use? (multi / cross)

[edit]

The title of the entry is Cross-platform, but more colloquial and recognizable still would be Multi-platform, what should we use? As somebodies already asked for removing the "type" column [4][5], though there are sections which still require it, but in "games" sections, for their own sake, it'd be better to replace (not to remove) with the "platform" information, as console games are pretty popular nowadays along with pc-games. Userpd (talk) 00:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since no one replied WP:SILENCE I suppose we will keep to the "multi" word. Feel free to add an objection, though. Userpd (talk) 20:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It dose what it says on the tin

[edit]

Do we need sources for things that have apocalypse in the title that they are apocalyptic?Slatersteven (talk) 14:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Science Fiction Film by J. P. Telotte.

[edit]

Telotte, J. P. Science Fiction Film. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

"One particularly noteworthy application of the seemingly boundless capacity of CGI effects for "making visible" our almost unimaginable fantasies has moved beyond this long fascination with artifice in a telling way. In fact, it marks a return to a territory first explored during the Depression in such films as Deluge (1933) and SOS Tidal Wave (1939), and again during the cold-war years in works like When Worlds Collide (1951) and The Day the World Ended, that of the apocalyptic disaster. In Independence Day (1996) an alien civilization suddenly appears, apparently intent on wiping out human civilization and, like interstellar locusts, consuming all of our planet's resources before moving on to another doomed host. Starship Troopers (1997) builds upon this same impulse with its tale of interplanetary warfare, impelled by asteroids sent to crash into Earth by the insect inhabitants of the distant planet Klendathu. With Deep Impact (1998), Armageddon (1998), and several similar narratives, we see Earth's inhabitants confronting a seemingly inevitable end (a situation previously envisioned in Abel Gance's science fiction epic La Fin du monde [End of the World, 1931] and the British film Meteor [1979]), one that all of their technological attainments seem practically powerless to avert. Obviously linked to the coming of the millennium (in much the way that the closing years of the nineteenth century similarly saw a proliferation of literary works on futuristic and apocalyptic themes), these films seem intent on suggesting both the limits of our technological attainments and our ultimate dependence on those same attainments. Indeed, in Deep Impact the spaceship that, through a suicide mission, manages to save Earth from an Extinction Level Event, as it is termed in the film, is named Messiah. Significantly, in all of these films what makes that last-moment technological salvation possible is something far more fundamental, more human than any scientific creation -- it is the coming together of a group of individuals, of mismatched and unlikely heroes whose selflessness and imagination manage to overcome or work around the initial, and seemingly final, failures of their technology." pp. 119-120.

This book also uses the word "apocalyptic" to refer to Akira; "near-apocalyptic" for The War of the Worlds (1953). --Levana Taylor (talk) 20:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sources for references

[edit]

Wolmark, Jenny. Aliens and others: science fiction, feminism and postmodernism, Chapter 4. 1994 . Iowa City : University of Iowa Press, 1994. Particularly Chapter 4.

Fortunati, V. "The metamorphosis of the apocalyptic myth: from Utopia to science fiction". in Utopias and the millennium, edited by Krishan Kumar and Stephen Bann. London : Reaktion Books, 1993.

Ketterer, David. "The Apocalyptic Imagination, Science Fiction, and American Literature" in. Science Fiction: A Collection of Critical Essays. ed. Mark Rose. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 1976.

Ketterer, David. New worlds for old: the apocalyptic imagination, science fiction, and American literature. Bloomington, Indiana University Press [1974].

Miller, Jim. "Post-Apocalyptic Hoping: Octavia Butler's Dystopian/Utopian Fiction". in Scraps of the untainted sky: science fiction, utopia, dystopia, ed. Tom Moylan. Boulder, Colo. : Westview Press, 2000.

Howell, Yvonne. Apocalyptic realism: the science fiction of Arkady and Boris Strugatsky.Peter Lang Publishing, Inc. 1994

Susan Sontag, "The Imagination of Disaster", Commentary, October 1965.

--Levana Taylor (talk) 20:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another good source of references is Kim Newman's Apocalypse Movies: End of the World Cinema (2000) Hypnosifl (talk) 06:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The End of August at the Hotel Ozone

[edit]

This may be a source for this being post apocalyptic, but I can't view it http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=n1sbAQAAIAAJ&q=the+end+of+august+at+the+hotel+ozone+%2B+post+apocalypse&dq=the+end+of+august+at+the+hotel+ozone+%2B+post+apocalypse&hl=en&ei=grRdTMjzIIyjsQaKp9jyBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA.Slatersteven (talk) 19:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Put "post-apocalyptic" and "the end of august at the hotel ozone" in quotes for better results. The search shows the text "Schmidt's riveting, post-apocalyptic film, The End of August at the Hotel Ozone (1966, released 1968), script by Juracek, is a brutal and frightening odyssey of survivors from atomic holocaust, all of them women, roaming about the ...", and then if you instead search for the phrase "all of them women, roaming about the" (again in quotes), it shows the next part "roaming about the countryside on horseback, killing — a snake, a dog, a cow — for the sport of it. They are desperately searching for a male to renew the species, and when they find him — a ..." Repeating with the last part of that sentence and so forth, the whole description is:
"Schmidt's riveting, post-apocalyptic film, The End of August at the Hotel Ozone (1966, released 1968), script by Juracek, is a brutal and frightening odyssey of survivors from atomic holocaust, all of them women, roaming about the countryside on horseback, killing — a snake, a dog, a cow — for the sport of it. They are desperately searching for a male to renew the species, and when they find him — a gentle, civilized old man — they murder him too. Schmidt's point seems to be that such a race is better off perishing."
The whole thing is on p. 423 of the 1996 edition of the book, p. 401 of the 1992 edition. Hypnosifl (talk) 06:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finding a film

[edit]

I can't find it on the list and don't know the name. I recall seeing a movie (aired on television) in the mid 80's, so I think it was a late 70's movie. Not sure about the cause (might have been nuclear war) but it led to famine. One of the main characters had access to food estimate data and in the end poisons himself and family rather than starving to death. I recall it seemed like the mafia was in the story as well trying to use it's influence to get food and let it's members live. Anyone know this movie? I'd like to include it on the list. MartinezMD (talk) 21:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, this is not an internet sci-fi film fan forum. BobbieCharlton (talk) 22:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. I'm trying to find it to make the list more inclusive, not discuss the movie.MartinezMD (talk) 22:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What a mess

[edit]

This article is a complete mess. Notable works are missing (eg. the movies Armageddon and Deep Impact), some appear in the wrong table, some appear twice. The tables are randomly ordered (I suggest picking alphabetical or date order and sticking to it consistantly). The sourcing, particularly of the works with no corresponding Wikipedia article, is poor or non existant; then again, perhaps works with no corresponding Wikipedia article should be excluded due to lack of notability. Astronaut (talk) 13:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have started to put CN tags for films. But there is a lot of work.Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In Armageddon (1998 film) and Deep Impact (film), earth/human society is not ruined by an event but is instead saved in the end. They are already appropriately listed on the List of disaster films. Other editors have previously removed these movies from the listing and I have subsequently too. MartinezMD (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this page is about actual apocalypses, not potential ones.Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Refactored the page (June 26, 2011)to create "table" layout

[edit]

Third Opinion Request text: There is a debate about which of two styles of layout -- a "section" layout or a "table" layout would be best for this entry.
The "section" layout can be seen in the entry as it now stands.
The "table" layout can be seen at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_apocalyptic_and_post-apocalyptic_fiction&oldid=436704355

17:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

On June 26, 2011, I completely restructured the entire page into sortable columns. If there is a problem, please revert it and leave reason for the reversion.

I hope everybody finds this is an improvement, and a good basis for going forward.

I've called it the "table" layout in contrast to the current "sections" layout. -- Stephen Ferg--StephenFerg (talk) 03:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about the "table" layout

[edit]

I think the new layout is terrible, and cannot understand why it was done. Can we have some explanation? As you asked that it was changed back if disliked I have done so, but forgot to put in the reason "The original format made it easier to find things I think, also it would have been nice for you to have given everyone a changed to comment on such a massive alteration."Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I think it could use a some revision, the new layout is much easier to search than before. Before you'd have to search every different section individually, if for example you wanted to review by year, genre, etc. Now all the content is in inclusive sortable columns.MartinezMD (talk) 19:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whereas before if I wanted to find a TV show about a war, but knew no other details I could find it easily. Now (well with the revised table) I need to know the year or title otherwise I have to wade thru every TV show or war story. For example Whoops apocalypse war TV series takes 17 seconds, under the proposed new layout it takes about 10 second longer because (at least in part) if you sort by title its at the bottom of a very long list (and remember I knew what I was looking for).Slatersteven (talk) 20:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why I like the "table" layout, and an explanation why I did it I agree with Mr/Ms Martinez. The old "section" layout had a certain fixed structure built into the page, so it was easy to search the page in one way, but virtually impossible to search it in another way (by date, for instance). The new layout ("table" layout, rather than "section" layout) is much more flexible, allowing a user to sort by the category of interest to him: the format (books, film, TV, etc), the cause (aliens, disease, etc.), the year, and so on.

I personally think that the ability to sort things by year is especially important. People often remember stuff by time frame ("I read that when I was about 16...") and that is helpful when searching for something. Also, sorting by date helps in seeing historical trends in apocalyptic fiction. For instance, during the cold war, the apocalypse usually came via global thermonuclear war. As that died away, and other concerns emerged, we get a trend toward ecological collapse and pandemic. Apocalyptic fiction tends to reflect a culture's anxieties, so by being able to sort by date, we can get some indication of cultural anxieties at any given point in time, and how they have evolved (well, changed) over time.

Also: the ability to sort by title across format is useful, I think. If you sort by title, then it is easy to see cases where (for example) a book was made into a film which then inspired a spinoff TV series whose theme music became a hit song.

So the argument for the new layout is that although it may be a bit more cumbersome for people with certain interests, it is a lot better for people with other interests. When you average it all out, I think it is -- on the average -- more useful to more people.

I understand that everyone must have a chance to review and comment before such a massive change is made. Given the wonderful ability of a wiki to do a rollback, I figured that the best way to put the change out to the community for review was simply to put the change into place and make it clear that if the wikipedia community did not like it, I had no problem with rolling it back. I think the "Ferg" layout is an improvement, but also strong agree that whether to keep it or to roll it back is a community decision. That's what makes wikipedia great! :) StephenFerg (talk) 12:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What happens next? Obviously, duelling rollbacks is not the way to go. What we want to do is to try to determine a community consensus. How is that done in wikipedia? A vote? I've contributed minor edits to wikipedia for a long time, but this is the first time that I've made such a major change, and I don't know the wikipedia technique for reaching consensus in such cases. StephenFerg (talk) 12:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is another problem, whilst its easy to find subjects near the top and bottom of the list, because it sorts alphabetically it makes it harder to search for those nearer the middle (you have to wade thru piles of text to get to monsters, then I have to wade thru all the monsters to find a monster novel (of which there appear to be none, but I know there is). In fact this whole table of your looks a mess, there is a large chunk without dates (so how can I look for publication date), but at least we can see the multiple entries for Day of the Triffids. As to consensus see WP:CON Slatersteven (talk) 14:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you using the sort feature? It is very easy. Just click on the sort by icon in the cause column header to cause the table to sort by cause. Then scroll down in the page until you hit the section on monsters. It is very easy. And you can easily see that there are a lot of monster entries.
Similarly with year. Click on the "sort by" icon in the year column header, and then scroll down until you find the year/date that you want. There are of course many entries that have no year information. For some it is inapplicable, and for others, it just hasn't been supplied yet. StephenFerg (talk) 20:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I have used the sort function, but as it sorts Alpha-numerically any dates or titles that are in the middle of the range will be in the middle of the page, and you cannot change that. Under the old system if I wanted to look up monster apocalypse I just clicked on monsters and it took me straight there (I could even click on monster film or monster novels and be taken straight to them), now I have to wade thru piles of text to find what I want.Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I wouldn't characterize dragging the scroll button to the middle of the page, which takes a second at most, as having to "wade through piles of text". And although the sections layout made it easy to find things in one pre-determined way, it made it extremely difficult to find them in other ways. StephenFerg (talk) 11:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A proposal It appears that no consensus has emerged -- we have one vote for the section layout and one vote for the table layout.

Is there a way in which we could allow the larger wikipedia community to submit feedback? I'm thinking of something like a note at the top of the page... "Help us improve this page. We're experimenting with two different formats for this page. (Links to the two layouts go here.) Please let us know which you prefer (a link to this TALK page)." StephenFerg (talk) 11:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFC
Slatersteven (talk) 12:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! StephenFerg (talk) 17:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Third Opinion Request

[edit]
Response to third opinion request:
Folks -- first of all thanks for the fantastic work! This is an incredibly comprehensive page, regardless of the format! As for the specifics, I would personally prefer the "big table" format. My rationale is that the ability to sort data quickly that is built in the Wikipedia pages increases usability significantly. Since we can't predict how exactly users are going to want to slide and dice the information (by year? by topic? by medium?), it appears to make more sense to keep a single flat table. Again, this is awesome work. Thanks everybody!!!—Paolo (talk) 02:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Planning to reformat this article in new "table" layout. Comments?

[edit]

After seeking opinions about the new "table" layout, it appears that we have three votes for the new "table" layout (Stephen Ferg, MD Martinez, and Paolo from the "third opinion request"), and one for the existing "section" layout (Steven Slater).

In view of the preponderance of community opinion, I am planning to convert this article to the table layout. Comments? StephenFerg (talk) 02:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No comment other than I think the full table is superior. If there are gaps in data fields, we can correct those deficiencies. MartinezMD (talk) 04:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reformatting of this article is complete (August 1, 2011)

[edit]

Article is now new "table" layout. StephenFerg (talk) 13:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say I much prefer the new table layout over the previous version with different sections for type of apocalypse. That being said, the single large table is a bit unwieldy. I'm not sure if this has already been discussed, but scanning the discussion I didn't notice a suggestion of splitting the table by media type. Something along the lines of Text/Graphic, Video, Game, and maybe Other. Perhaps that could be considered for future updates? Megaton.us (talk) 04:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The first column divides it into basic types. Did you see that and are suggesting further categories?MartinezMD (talk) 08:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of breaking up the table into parts, but I agree the current format is fine, and usable. Megaton.us (talk) 02:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would anyone have an objection to capitalizing the names of the Formats and Causes? The all lowercase just looks strange on the page, as if its still unfinished. Megaton.us (talk) 02:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should we split the table by media type, or any other category?

[edit]

Hi Megaton --

Breaking up the list by media type (or any other category) was just the kind of thing that we were trying to get away from by making a big list. The older format had things split up by causes of the apocalypse, then by media type. But that made sorting and searching for things in other ways (e.g. sorting by date or by title) difficult.

There were pros and cons for each format, and we spent a lot of time (calendar time) talking about it, especially with Steven Slater, who has been doing a fantastic job of maintaining the list for a long time, and requesting input. Eventually, the consensus was that the table (big list) format was preferable because it was more flexible and more helpful to users.

You're right -- it is awkward to edit a big long list. The upside is that it is a lot easier to use the page.

Another upside that I've noticed is that the ability to sort things helps in detecting problems. For example, in the old format, there were duplicate entries (in different sections) for "Earth Abides". And one of them had the wrong "cause". Being able to sort the list by name -- so that the two duplicate entries sorted together -- made it easy to see that they were inconsistent duplicates.

So the bottom line, I think, is that what makes the list most useful is just the fact that it is not split up by categories. That makes it possible for each user to re-sort the list by the category that is most useful to him or her.StephenFerg (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great, like I said, this version really is better than the older one, and multiple sorts (for example type, then year, then title) seem to work fine which takes care of separating by media type for me. Megaton.us (talk) 02:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should this list include audio fiction?

[edit]

I'm wondering if it would be appropriate to include items of post-apocalyptic audio fiction on the list. For example, episodes of Old Time Radio dramas that focused on PA topics, or modern podcast audio dramas.

I've started such a list on an external wiki, but if they would be welcome here, then I'll move them over.

Post-Apocalyptic Radio Shows and Audio Dramas

Megaton.us (talk) 04:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe

[edit]

I'm not sure. But I think adding a link to your wiki page would certainly be appropriate. StephenFerg (talk) 18:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, until anyone else chimes in, I'll just add an item in the External Links section. Megaton.us (talk) 02:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my external wiki link was automatically rolled back. I guess I'll link to the Archive.org page for the public domain or Creative Commons audio files. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megaton.us (talk • contribs) 23:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of Causes used in the list

[edit]

At the very least I would suggest renaming "death star" to something more representative of an impact event. Planetary Impact, Impact Event, or Astronomic (Astronomical?) Impact or similar. And I'd like to rename "sun" to be more inclusive of non-impact events such as cosmic rays and such. Or perhaps just blend those to categories into one. Megaton.us (talk) 03:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree totally on the death star. Made the change.MartinezMD (talk) 03:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it first to Astronomic impact, but when I looked, there is a Wiki article on impact event, so I used that instead.MartinezMD (talk) 03:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

contents 2.1 and 2.2

[edit]

I'm a little curious as to what went into the decision to include 2.1 'about the format of the list' and 2.2 'how to use the list' in the actual encyclopedia article? after reading the discussions it's clear that much consideration was put into the formatting of the list, but is this appropriate to include in the article itself? Jrober (talk) 02:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. I don't think a history of the page is needed in the article. For that the reader can use the talk page. I removed those sections.MartinezMD (talk) 12:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alert: lists of publications in Articles for deletion

[edit]

Some lists of books have been added to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. You can find the discussions here. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fallout and other games?

[edit]

Is there some reason not obvious to me that the Fallout series, perhaps the single most publicly-known example of post-apocalyptic game, is not in this list? I can think of plenty of other games that are missing, too: Bad Blood, Half-Life (2/2.1/2.2), Metro 2033 (though the novel is listed), et cetera. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.31.152.159 (talk) 06:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is: you are overlooking it. The Fallout series, Half life, Metro 2033, are all in the article.Bad Blood is the only one you mentioned that has not been added.MartinezMD (talk) 07:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is my first time seeing/using this list. Would something like Inherit The Earth be allowed, or would it be bad form to include this as it is a major spoiler and surprise that the game is actually post-apocalyptic? On the one hand it definitely counts contextually, but on the other, it's a rare enough work that its inclusion would completely ruin the surprise for anyone coming across this rare gem. If judged acceptable I would also have no idea where it ought to be dropped in the list.172.129.11.213 (talk) 14:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does WP:NOTE apply here?

[edit]

Lots of entries in the list seem to have been removed citing WP:NOTE as the reason. However WP:NOTE would appear to specifically be about whether or not articles are noteworthy enough to warrant having their own page. Surely that doesn't effect them being mentioned here if they don't actually have an article of their own?--41.34.123.77 (talk) 09:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you read WP:NOTE, you will come to the section WP:LISTN. That includes the summary for WP:STAND. If the past, the criteria was very strict. Generally, you have to be consistent. So if you are liberal with placing a non-notable book, then any non-notable book should be allowed. List sizes are generally capped at 32K. So then you'd get into arguments over whose pet-entry gets in and whose doesn't.
There are more than enough examples of notable works to not have a valid reason reason to include a non-notable work. The work itself or the author being notable enough to have it's own WP entry is easy criteria to follow. If anything we should be paring down the list. In addition, I'm becoming increasingly concerned about a lot of people wanting their personal books/stories listed on WP for self-promotional (WP:PROMO and WP:COI) reasons. MartinezMD (talk) 12:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend to agree, my only proviso is how do we establish notability? One answer is that any subject must have been mentioned as notable or significant (or at least seminal) in a RS.Slatersteven (talk) 12:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a bad idea. We'll just have to be cautious with the source. (I took the liberty of correcting your typos btw). MartinezMD (talk) 21:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My problem with notability is that far too often something is considered notable simply because it is popular, not because it is itself anymore or less notable than anything else that is listed. I like reading new indie authors and many of them are much better than more well known authors and they deserve the recognition. Incidentally as there doesn't seem to be a policy covering this (you said yourself you were using WP:NOTE because it seemed sensible, not because it actually applied) perhaps a policy is needed? Seems harsh to be removing edits on the grounds of a policy when that policy doesn't actually apply to this situation. It also seems that this has been applied inconsistently as there are many entries in the list which don't appear to have been deemed notable enough to have their own page. --41.34.114.55 (talk) 05:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you aren't reading the entire policy or sections we've mentioned.MartinezMD (talk) 12:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the more specific WP policy: Wikipedia:Source_list#Listed_items

"Lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others...Inclusion of material on a list should be based on what reliable sources say, not on what the editor interprets the source to be saying."

MartinezMD (talk) 12:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of the list

[edit]

Before worrying about inclusion criteria for entries in this list, you should establish the notability of the list itself (see the notability criteria for stand-alone lists). Note the emphasis on reliable sources. I have added one, but it would help to have a few more. RockMagnetist (talk) 07:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly in the old style list there were a number of sources from books discusing this genre.Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those could be recovered from the history. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lets blow up the table!

[edit]

This list would be significantly easier for readers to use, and editors to edit if we got rid of the table and created sections for each of the media types--literature, comics, film, television. Right now, the table is so big, it doesn't sort quickly and the extraneous markup necessary for the table has added an enormous amount of bytes that really slow this thing down. Any objections? --Mike Cline (talk) 14:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It used to be sort of like that, it was decided that this was better (I agree with you).Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
>"it was decided that this was better" - Who decided? It's sad that merely two-three users can silently agree on a thing that will make navigation much worse than it used to be. Then some user parrots and brings article into such a horrible state. I suggest such users to focus their energy on finding films that aren't yet presented in the article and then add the found films to the article. Let alone the fact that you can't sort by films, you'll have to scroll down and seek for them in the big table, as it's presented in the current state of the article. ChaChing! (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This has gotten silly and useless. "Games" are not fiction, and most of the listings in "Other" are wildly obscure. Listing comic books also undermines the credibility of the list as you have serious works of literature beside childish anime and manga. It's too bad this entry is actually declining in quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.146.76.228 (talk) 19:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I lol that just because you feel another whole country's works are useless that you would deem they unnecessary of inclusion. Thank goodness you don't have a hand in REAL encyclopedias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.129.11.213 (talk) 14:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

let's vote on dividing tables by its sections

[edit]

Right now the table seems horrendous. Many items that don't have a date (year) get lost when you sort by year. You can't sort films by "war" and start exploring them by chronology, while if the table was derived separately, you could simply go to needed section (war) and sort by year. And it also makes it harder for new contributors to add a film, they will have to deal with such a huge table, seek for proper category etc. Mess needs to be avoided and detailed data needs to be accessible more comfortable. Pessimist2006 (talk) 21:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC) I felt it was a bad idea when as wdopted it, and time has nt lessoned that iew. Lets return to the old mutli table formate.Slatersteven (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest taking this to RFC, I would like to comment but I think getting more eyes would help come to a conclusion which sticks. Someoneanother 16:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: List format

[edit]
Consensus on no list. Uncontested suggestion to add note marking columns as sortable to help readers. No consensus on whether one table (making sorting on any column possible) or many (making editing easier, reading on underpowered computers easier, and subsorting within one particular category possible). Churn and change (talk) 21:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

Should this list remain a single table, return to being a individual lists (by apocalypse type then by medium) which it was previously, or be split into individual lists either by apocalypse type or medium? Or is there another option? Someoneanother 06:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Extended content
Comment Also, it seems that users on slow-operating computers, such as netbooks with single-core processors experience freezes while accessing the current big table. Plus, small size of display also obstructs one's findings in such a big table that is on par also not comfortable to deal with. And usually users look for certain categories of apocalyptic/post-apocalyptic films (to edit certain section), so they don't need to load all of the article. If the current big table were to divide into separate tables by medium/type; as content of the article used to be - that would also decrease excessive overload of a Wikipedia server. Even if on a small scale. Pessimist2006 (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better as a table It's better now. The table is sortable so it is more organized and less redundant. The cells of the table need to be fixed though: some of the end cells them are open.Curb Chain (talk) 16:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I rarely think formatting an article as a table a good idea at Wikipedia. Tables are characteristic of a data collection; prose is characteristic of an encyclopedia. But this one might be an exception--it does solve the problem of which criterion comes first. (I wouldn't like a primary sort by type of apocalypse, which is not always unambiguous.) But it is not clear to me what is intended as the default sort. I thing the least ambiguous is year of publication. For readers unfamiliar with sortable tables, and this is an article which may well attract those not very familiar with Wikipedia conventions, there should be a note at the top indicating it can be sorted. DGG ( talk ) 02:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better as a table without question. Being able to sort the entries by different criteria makes ALL the difference! Dezastru (talk) 18:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Divide table. As stated above: "Many items that don't have a date (year) get skipped chaotically in the list (depending on how they're placed within source of article) when you sort by year. You can't sort films by "war" and start to explore them by listing chronologically, while if a table is to derived separately, you could simply go to needed section (war) and sort by year. Also, a single table makes it hard for new contributors to add a film, they will have to deal with such a huge table, seek for proper category etc". Pessimist2006 (talk) 15:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Divide table into separate tables by cause. It would be much easier to read and edit. --PnakoticInquisitortalk 03:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Divide table I have found this new format far harder to edit, and far harder to use then the old format.Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Table: ability to sort material is exceptionally useful here. Splitting the table in whatever way would harm the whole sorting idea, and I see no compelling benefit in doing so. The only thing I would change is the second table: I would use notes instead. This would also aid sorting. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Merge discussion

[edit]

There's a proposal to merge this article with current one. For two reasons: all of films are already covered in this (List of apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction) article, and list of films in the other article is short, so there's no need for an additional article. Secondly, it's better to simplify and have one stable article about everything related to apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic stuff, as there are not so many views per these two articles. Is better to unite these view numbers and direct/focus them onto one article, which would increase editing activity in one, single article as well. Pessimist2006 (talk) 21:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hurmmm. In my opinion, it should not be merged as there are many movie lovers out there. By having this article seperated, it should be easier for them to search for the movie. Fareez Yusran (talk) 08:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Fareez Yusran, movies and books are 2 different things that should be separate. People that are searching for movies don't want novels mixed in with their search. Anetek3D March 2014

Massive disagreement. The apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic genres are utterly and completely different. Fiction about asteroids wiping out all life on earth have little do with things like Mad Max. BlazingOwnager (talk) 12:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Apocalypticism" is a "religious belief"

[edit]

quote article: "Apocalypticism is the religious belief that there will be an apocalypse, a term which originally referred to a revelation of God's will, but now usually refers to belief that the world will come to an end very soon, even within one's own lifetime."

This does not specifically specify or deny that the term, Apocalypticism can be non-religious. The term "apocalyptic" is prolly assumed by most to mean either way, which could generate confusion here. This introduces a need to exactly specify or lawyer-proof the meaning, as do most (all?) dictionary definitions of that term.

apocalypticism: American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (it's religious)

apocalypticism: Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 11th Edition (it's religious)

apocalypticism: Dictionary.com ("noun Theology") Curiously, this is same definition as the article sites!? (it also says: "People who can define Apocalypticism may know 25,133 words, as many as a 8th grader. ")

It seems that term (an ism) "apocalypticism" has a specific meaning that is not: exactly of, nor exactly derived from; apocalyptic. This is common among "ism's." It is good that the term is here due to it's obvious similarity, however, this vagueness should be corrected. It looks as if "apocalyptic" and "apocalypticism" are being equivocated. I would change it now, however there appears a be a very jealous, self-righteous (always right) editor here who worships his own words. (Forgive my frankness & repeating redundancy.)
--68.127.84.25 (talk) 16:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)Doug Bashford[reply]

The show Defiance

[edit]

I just came across this page and didn't want to add it myself incase it didn't fit. Would the new sci-fi show 'Defiance' fall under apocalyptic literature? The world does fall apart and is literally physically changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.69.141.109 (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Stone Mess

[edit]

This is probably the worst example of an encyclopedic article I've ever seen on WP, and the talk page is a skirmish of cranky disagreements about the definition of "apocalypticism" instead of reasonable discourse related to unf**king the article itself. Why even bother having an Excel-style table that can't be sorted? It takes up a ton of space and is therefore not good WP style. Why are films even on the list at all? The article is about "fiction," which isn't a term conventionally applied to film. Why is there no order whatsoever in the list? Why are films/stories/novels not separated into their own sections (or, if not, why are the film versions of the books not listed together), and why are the publication/release dates out of order?

The reason I'm asking these questions isn't because I want to bash the article and then walk away. Before I dive in to fix this thing, I'd like to know whether there are reasons for the above state of affairs that I'm incapable of recognizing/appreciating. I'm actually surprised it hasn't been sent up for deletion. Sugarbat (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you look four sections above this, you will see there was a vote after much discussion on separating the list out into subsections, and this was the result.MartinezMD (talk) 21:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait -- am I missing some important instructions? In what way is this gigantnormous table sortable? I'm clicking all over the place and can't find any cells that respond. What gives? And also: Who voted in this election you cite? Sugarbat (talk) 21:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many editors voted, I opposed the change (in an even earlier vote). By the way how are films not fiction?Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that films can't be "fictional," but that the term "fiction" is a conventional reference to prose. See definitions in Merriam-Webster online, Dictionary.com, The Oxford dictionary online, Cambridge online dictionary, or, if you've got time, the OneLook, which gives definitions from a whole bunch of dictionaries. I'm not saying that a movie as "an imaginative creation or a pretense that does not represent actuality but has been invented" wouldn't fit under a few of the more loosely bound definitions, only that in the context of an encyclopedia, "fiction" almost always refers to literary works. But, in other news, who are these "many editors" you mention? And thanks for replying. Sugarbat (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"1.1 invention or fabrication as opposed to fact:" "c : a work of fiction; especially : novel" "he type of book or story that is written about imaginary characters and events and does not describe real people or deal with facts,", "something feigned, invented, or imagined; a made-up story: We've all heard the fiction of her being in delicate health.", so fiction is just...a fictional story.
As to the last vote, about half a dozen users too part, including myself. Curb Chain, DGG, Dezastru, Pessimist2006, PnakoticInquisitor, Dmitrij D. Czarkoff all participated.Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Though the table is sortable (try clicking on the arrows at the top (next to "Format", "Year", "Cause", etc)), it's also too long to navigate or edit comfortably, IMO. I Support splitting the table into separate sections/tables for "Television", "Film", "Literature", "Games", etc. Maybe even separate articles, following the precedent of dystopia, which has: List of dystopian literature, List of dystopian films, and List of dystopian music, TV programs, and games. ʍw 16:20, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding what Sugarbat said. At this point, the article just feels messy out of spite.2601:346:C201:60C0:CCD2:AD4:C55A:A58E (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

correction

[edit]

"Apocalypse is a Greek word referring to the end of the world." This is not quite accurate. The dictionary source cited for this reference refers to the New Testament and the Book of Revelations (it was the last book of the Bible to be accepted). In this Book---the destruction of the World gives way to a perfect and eternal city. It is not until the mid-twentieth century that apocalypse is equated almost solely with catastrophe. Apocalypse is from the ancient Greek meaning to "unveil" or "reveal." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.117.22 (talk) 16:35, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on List of apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic 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: 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) 08:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic 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: 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) 09:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic 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: 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) 14:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic 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: 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) 16:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Book to add to the list

[edit]

I've got a book that should be added to this list: Central Passage (1962) by Lawrence Schoonover.Malcolmlucascollins (talk) 05:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It'll need a reliable source that establishes its notability.MartinezMD (talk) 05:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Mitchells vs. the Machines

[edit]

I added The Mitchells vs. the Machines to this list because the movie, while an animated comedy, is clearly about a robot apocalypse, something mentioned in descriptions of the movie and in dialogue. Then it was deleted by User:MartinezMD because he said it wasn't ""a subgenre of science fiction, science fantasy, dystopia or horror in which the Earth's (or another planet’s) civilization is collapsing or has collapsed." The movie is clearly (1) Science fiction in which (2) the Earth's civilization is collapsing; so I'm unclear on how it should not be included. Anyway MartinezMD said I had to discuss it here, so here we are. Volcycle (talk) 05:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)Volcycle[reply]

It appeared to be more of an averted robot takeoever, and the first few reviews I read about it (such as in Variety) didn't describe it as apocalyptic. However, upon further reading I see it is described as such, so I will revert my reverts. Apologies. MartinezMD (talk) 05:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would Resident Evil Welcome to Raccoon city be relevant to this article?

[edit]

Would Resident Evil: Welcome to Raccoon City film be relevant to this article? Would it fall under "apocalypse" umbrella term? Royih28087 (talk) 13:42, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know all the movies in the series, but many of them certainly are apocalyptic. See if you can find a reliable source calling it apocalyptic and add it if you do.MartinezMD (talk) 16:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptable sources for A Guide To Dating At The End Of The World

[edit]

I’ve added the film “A guide to dating at the End of the world” to this list but since there is no page for this title on Wikipedia itself I’ve tried including different sources but they have all been rejected. Can I ask what source would be acceptable? CJsaurus (talk) 16:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Read wp:rs, for a start most sites with user-generated content are not RS. Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also check out WP:Perennial sources. Daranios (talk) 20:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Moviemeter is not on there. Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_apocalyptic_and_post-apocalyptic_fiction&oldid=1208204767"