Jump to content

Talk:List of apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Maintenance

This page needs a standardized format, categorization of unsorted list items, verification of list items, and annotation of list items that are currently without any context.

It also needs stringent criteria:

Agreed, there needs to be some organization to the article beyond "method of destruction". Apocalyptic and Post-A should probably be separated as well. Jericho and the like are basically cozy catastrophe stories, which have their own article. Stories in which the destruction of the world or humanity is threatened but averted probably do not belong (Near-Apocalyptic fiction?) Noclevername 00:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
What about stories where the end of the world has occured in the past and humanity has reocvered, but it remains an integral part of some storylines? Star Trek is a good example of this, as the eugenics Wars and World War 3 have already occured and humanity has recovered, but they are the focal point of a number of episodes and an important part of the shows mythology. Maybe the page shold be divided in to sections which seperates stories that occur prior to apocalypse, during the apocalpyse, and sometime after, when the effects are still felt.

There are also certain things that don't clearly fit in to one category. Final Fantasy 7, for instance, features a massive meteor impacting the planet, but the meteor is summond by magic. Does this go in to the supernatural section, or asteroids? A similar problem/conundrum can be found in Stephen King's "The Stand". The initial apocalyptic event involves a pandemic of a man made variety, but what comes after involves many supernatural elements, as well as the climax of the book in when a nuclear weapon destroys a city, which itself was meant to be some kind of smybolic final battle between good and evil. --Kittynboi 18:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Merge

I largely duplicated the work of this article in List of Nuclear Holocaust fiction, and proposed a merge into this article. However, another, possibly superior solution would be to break this article out into multiple articles for different genres, to make it easier to reference from the main articles, ie Nuclear Holocaust, World War III, etc. However, both of those examples have considerable overlap. Merging might be preferable.

Please note that there are at least ten works present in the aforelinked that are not linked here, so whoever implements the merge, if ever it is implemented, please really merge the articles, rather than simply axing the one or the other. Thanks! MrZaiustalk 01:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not liking the new layout, it seems stupid to mix films, TV shows/episodes and novels into a single table, it makes it difficult to tell what is what. Films, TV, and Books need to be three separate lists otherwise it is just a jumbled, dis-organised mess. magnius (talk) 19:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Some more items

These items appeared in post-holocaust, which was merged into the main article on this genre. Consider them for inclusion in the list, although many are redundant:

Other writers who have written post-holocaust books include:

Christopher Parham (talk) 02:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I tagged this page cleanup

I need to work on this page soon. Making it similar to List_of_United_States_foreign_interventions_since 1945, with a specific format:

Year, name, author.

I am sure there are encylopedias of post apolyptic fiction, which may help us organize this chaos. Odessaukrain 03:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

custom StarCraft campaign

The StarCraft campaign mentioned here is not in the official game. It is therefore fanfiction and should be removed.218.215.140.218 10:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Remember that You too can help. MrZaiustalk 10:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Title

I propose that this article be re-titled "List of apocalypse fiction" because:

  • that would be an equally descriptive but less unwieldy title; and
  • it would avoid the ambiguity of calling the fiction items "apocalyptic" — rather, each is a fiction about an apocalypse.

Also, I suggest maintaining consistency in listing items by year of release.

Nihil novi 19:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The main article is currently Apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction, and the distinction seems to be useful. As for maintenance... If everybody who's proposed this so far could come together (including myself) surely something could be done. –Unint 00:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate Entries/Reimaginings

I don't really like the idea of removing movies based on listed books et al. If they are in a like medium, it might not be a big deal to merge them into a single entry, but that's as far as it oughta go. Wouldn't want someone looking specifically for a film or novel here to miss what they're looking for because only the novel or early film is listed. MrZaiustalk 13:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Formatting

Given the recent spate of editing in the World War III section, I thought I'd ask: Since this is the only section sorted by media right now, this is the only section where individual entries need years only. For the other sections, what should be the standard format for indicating medium? (To be consistent, it would have to be either something like "2004. The novel X" or "2004. X, a novel".)

Shouldn't we add Margaret Atwood's Oryx And Crake to the list since it deals with a world after ecological catastrophe?


Can't verify Stephen J. Davis 11.06

I have searched for information on Stephen J. Davis listed as author of 11.06 under World War III novels of 2007. I can find no information on this title and the only author named Stephen J. Davis I can find is a theological writer. Is it possible this is a reference to a book of theology about the apocalypse and therefore not relevant to apocalyptic fiction?

Can anyone else find anything?

Tullyis 23:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Resistance: F all of Man

Should Resistence: Fall of Man be added?Grayjack 03:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)Grayjack

Fair use rationale for Image:Thedayafter.jpg

Image:Thedayafter.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 06:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

A Couple of Issues

Hi, I'm currently writing an essay on apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction, and looking at this article I have a couple of questions:

  • 'The Day of the Triffids' is listed under Alien Invasion. That's not right. The Triffids are bred by humans - the main character Bill Masen tells us this when he describes the triffids as "horrible alien things which some of us had created"
  • Jose Saramago's 1995 novel 'Blindness' could go under Pandemic? While global civilization is not destroyed, it might as well be, since the infected are left to end for themselves in an environment where law and order have completely disappeared
  • 'Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy'? Earth is, after all, completely destroyed pretty early on in the book, so civilzation would have ended, too.

A response would be great. Cheers. Jjmbarton 16:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

i'm not vandalising the cybernetic revolt list, i'm just trying to help i'm a big fan of that genre....

NOTE: 90% or even more of the cybernetic revolt stories are apocalyptic or post-apocalytpic, please don't flame me i'm not vandalysing this list i'm just trying to help here, i love cybernetic revolt genre very much. and i apologise for my BAD english and the misunderstood of adding things to the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.224.134.235 (talk) 02:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your point--if 90% of them are apocalyptic or post-apocalyptic, then go ahead and put those on the list, just don't put the other 10% which aren't (like Westworld, for example). Hypnosifl (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

FFVI now categorized

I put it under Ecological catastrophe, because it is in fact the statues and the magic that destroys the world (even though it was Kefka that moved them to let that happen, it was the magic that beared down onto the world and caused the plot twist). This is also the main destruction event that the player actually sees happen and will remember more, I think. 71.236.69.97 (talk) 13:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to split this article.

Following the precedent set over at List of dystopian literature, I propose that we split this article into four articles, namely: List of apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic literature (which would deal only with short stories, novels, etc.); List of apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic films; List of apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic TV programmes, games, and music; and List of apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic comics (these last two could be sorted differently, depending upon the number of items in each article, that matters not at all to me). I think this would allow for much better organization and better presentation of the information. Thoughts? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 03:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, Time travel in fiction is all one list, so there isn't a clear precedent here. I don't have strong feelings about this issue but my inclination would be to just leave the page as it is so the information is all in one place. Hypnosifl (talk) 15:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Hypnosifl, this list is huge, but future contributions will be much less if we break up the article. On the other hand:
  1. List of zombie films
  2. List of undead-themed video games
  3. List of zombie novels
Breaks up the sections in this format, and connects all of three media formats with Template:Zombies.
This is an idea that maybe the community can look at later.
Tissuebox (talk) 05:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Why not instead of breaking it up by medium we do it by content? Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 05:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I think because as I wrote above, "future contributions will be much less if we break up the article". I think the article is okay as it is right now. There is so much work needing to be done with cleaning it up, making everything standard... It is much easier to clean up one article, then several. Tissuebox (talk) 05:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I am happy with it the way that it is, Tissuebox is doing a fine job of restructuring and it makes sense to keep it all in one page magnius (talk) 13:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hidden comments

Regarding this change.

You can't tell people what to put into an article and what not to put into an article. If someone puts something into an article you don't like, move it or remove it.--Rockfang (talk) 16:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Quite wrong, actually. Hidden comments are an entirely appropriate method by which to discourage new or anonymous users from including inappropriate content in an article. The use of same in this article is in keeping with policy. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 23:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


Armageddon & Deep Impact

I have removed them from the list because they are not strictly post-apoc, the world as a whole is still largely fine after the events of the movies. Plus, you do not really see much of the atfre effects of the impacts the do happen magnius (talk) 23:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The list covers apocalyptic fiction too, so I'm guessing Armageddon and Deep Impact were listed because both deal (in a way) with the world coming to an end by way of "astronomic impact".--Nohansen (talk) 05:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't even think that they are all that apocalyptic. They are certainly disaster films, and there is a lot of collateral damage, but the apocalypse is avoided with minimal damage to the Earth. Deep Impact may just about qualify, but Armageddon certainly doesn't, IMO anyway. If there is a general consensus to the contrary then add it back, but I really do not think they quite make the grade. magnius (talk) 12:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

If the theme is about the end of the world I would think it qualifies, whether that end came about or not. What Magnius is describing is post-apocalyptic, but the page covers both before and after according to the title. This page needs a lot of work on consistency. If I get some time later I may do some clean-up. Nowimnthing (talk) 19:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Apocalyptic fiction deals with an apocalyptic event (like nuclear war, plague, disaster, etc.) that ends the world/civilization while post-apocalyptic fiction deals with the world after an apocalyptic event. Neither movie deals with either situation, a possible apocalyptic event was averted with only minor (relatively speaking) damages to the planet. They are more like disaster movies (such as Volcano). Still the point about there being a lack of consistency is an issue. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Can't believe I am defending those films but, from [Websters]

Main Entry: apoc·a·lypse Pronunciation: \ə-ˈpä-kə-ˌlips\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, revelation, Revelation, from Anglo-French apocalipse, from Late Latin apocalypsis, from Greek apokalypsis, from apokalyptein to uncover, from apo- + kalyptein to cover — more at hell Date: 13th century 1 a: one of the Jewish and Christian writings of 200 b.c. to a.d. 150 marked by pseudonymity, symbolic imagery, and the expectation of an imminent cosmic cataclysm in which God destroys the ruling powers of evil and raises the righteous to life in a messianic kingdom bcapitalized : revelation 3 2 a: something viewed as a prophetic revelation b: armageddon 3: a great disaster <an environmental apocalypse>

I think we can throw out def 1 but def 2 - 3 may fit our movies. Especially if we look at the def of Armageddon

Main Entry: Ar·ma·ged·don Pronunciation: \ˌär-mə-ˈge-dən\ Function: noun Etymology: Greek Armageddōn, Harmagedōn, scene of the battle foretold in Rev 16:14–16 Date: 14th century 1 a: the site or time of a final and conclusive battle between the forces of good and evil b: the battle taking place at Armageddon 2: a usually vast decisive conflict or confrontation

Def 2 of Armageddon gets us there. Both movies describe a vast decisive conflict between life and an apocalypse. Nowimnthing (talk) 18:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Jason X is a film with an Ecological catastrophe

Earth was devastated by pollution so it does belong here. Sure humanity moved to space but there was STILL an ecological armageddon on a planetary scale before hand. FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 07:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

But was that the main theme of the film or just a backdrop? I don't know myself having only seen bits of it Nowimnthing (talk) 20:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Reorganization

Often editors place items in the WWIII section that don't belong there, probably because they don't realize that there are other sections and are simply putting it in the first on they see. Also a quick look at the WWIII sections shows that many items are in the wrong place. I would propose that a way to solve this would be to organize by media instead of content to make it less confusing for some editors. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 12:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

How about putting it all in a sortable table, then users can choose what order they see and it will matter less where something goes when first entered. Not saying I have time for such a massive reorg but I may be able to help some. Nowimnthing (talk) 14:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Changes

I really do not think that the recent changes are appropriate. They seem to have been applied with little or no discussion as far as I can see, and they are making a mess of the article. Now that we have films, TV shows and books all mixed up it is a chore to use. I don't mind the use of tables, but they should at least be split into separate categories rather than lumping everything into one loooooong list. magnius (talk) 21:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Previously there were 60 sections, covering an entire page.
I also added dates for 30 books, and standarized all sections, I also cleaned up the first section a lot.
There has been a cleanup tag on this page for over a year and a half (March 2007).
Possibly we can seperate it into film, television, novels, and other.
I am open to colaberatively working with other wikipedians, and new ideas.
Thanks for taking the time to voice your concerns, I look forward to working with you in the future.
Ironically, right above this message Nowimnthing wrote:
How about putting it all in a sortable table, then users can choose what order they see and it will matter less where something goes when first entered. Not saying I have time for such a massive reorg but I may be able to help some.
I am willing to spend the time for such a "massive reorg." And look forward to everyone's input.
Tissuebox (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I definitely think it should be split into separate sections, but I do like the table idea as it makes adding details and extra into a lot tidier. As I say, my only concern is that jumbling books, films and everything into one long list makes research a nightmare...if someone wants to know what post apoc books are around they have to scroll down a huge long jumbled list, possibly missing some in the process. People need to be able to leap straight to what they want with no fuss. I agree that there were too many sections though, a table listing novels is fine, it doesn't need to be split by decade, and alphabetical order makes better sense too magnius (talk) 22:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I like the idea of "jumbling books, films and everything into one long list makes research a nightmare". Great idea. Please be patient, and I will reformat the section as you envision it. You can revert to the old style while I work on it on my user page.
I have spent probably 6 hours on this thus far, over 3 days. The reason it has taken so long, is I don't understand Microsoft Word's wildcard find and replace option, and am trying to teach myself. Also with so many authors, the formatting is different in different sections, which, if you have ever used find and replace to format, different formats cause a hell of a lot of headaches.
Amazing! This page is 49 printed pages. Tissuebox (talk) 00:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
That's much better :) Keep up the good work...must be mentally exhausting magnius (talk) 01:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your support :) I appreciate all of your work thus far....
It is really worth it, all I want to do is find the best post apocalyptic fiction, and Wikipedia has one of the most extensive lists, albeit jumbled and in chaos and hard to read...that is where I decided to pitch in....
You just corrected the problem with auto changing large amounts of text, every time there are three or four sections which are incorrect.
Have you read any of the series novels? Any suggestions? I don't like post apocalyptic fantasy much.
I am going to work on the authors in the novels section now, there is a way you can swap an authors name, from first to last, using Microsoft word wildcard find and replace. With a couple more commands, I can change, for example, Stephen King into King, Stephen (followed by the dreadful cleaning up I always have to do, because 3 to 4 sections don't comply with the rule). Tissuebox (talk) 03:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Having a searchable table is not a bad idea, but I wish you had started a discussion here before creating it so people could offer suggestions about the implementation. My suggestion for a possible change: is there a way to have the default version of the table be sorted by date rather than by title? This would be in keeping with how the section was previously, and also with the organization of the other sections. Hypnosifl (talk) 03:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I prefer the alphabetical order, but if the consensus is for date order I have no objections magnius (talk) 13:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I prefer sorting by dates because it's better for browsing if you don't have a specific title in mind, you can see how the genre has evolved over time. Also, it seems to be the wikipedia convention with other lists of this type, like List of time travel science fiction. Hypnosifl (talk) 17:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
given the size, is it time we thought about breaking out the major categories into their own pages? This page could remain as a portal and misc small lists. Nowimnthing (talk) 13:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I'd say wait and see how it looks once the table job is complete, I don't see any real need to split it off into separate pages for separate media magnius (talk) 13:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I moved nuclear war up as I thought that may be a good example of what I was thinking about but there seesm to be some overlap with WWIII maybe the change could combine with some merging of sections. I can wait though, the work on the tables is necessary in my mind whether they end up breaking off or not. Good work so far. Nowimnthing (talk) 13:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
How do people feel about Collapsible tables? Nowimnthing (talk) 15:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Could be worth a try, maybe do it and see what people think once it is up magnius (talk) 15:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Citation needed tags

What criteria needs to be added to remove the citation needed tags? I am familar with WP:RS, etc. No need to reemphasize general wikipolicy. I am interested in this specific case, with books.

The books obviously exist, or at least I assume they do. Please clarify with a reasonable criteria. Tissuebox (talk) 17:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

You use a very telling word..."assume". Wiki isn't here for assumptions, every entry and fact needs to be backed up with a reference to an external article if there is no wiki page in existence. Without references how do we know that the books are in the right place? How do we even know that they belong in the article? How do we even know that is exists? Any uncited work needs to be removed. magnius (talk) 19:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Please don't remove any titles without adding a "citation needed" and leaving it up for a while. It's also pretty easy to find reviews of most of these works from reliable web sources (or books with pages viewable on google book searches) if you do a quick search online. Hypnosifl (talk) 15:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I would rather have a long, more comprehensive, disorganized list, then a list that has been purged by editors unwilling to do the two seconds of research needed to verify these books existence themselves. Instead of doing the simple google search, several citation tags were added, threatening to remove the books if someone else didn't do the research: "tagged for citation or removal". I then had to stop creating the tables and spent time jumping through this editors hoops. It is no surprise that everyone of these books exist, which a simple, quick google search could have found.
Since an editor has threatened to purge a more organized list, my table formatting of this page has come to an end.Tissuebox (talk) 11:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Mazimum of two lines for all entries

How would everyone feel if I shrunk the larger entries that already have existing pages down to two lines. This way the page looks more unifrom, and more material is on each page.

I am attempting to make all of the tables a uniform length, the idea being setting the optimal length of each column, so the most information will be seen on a computer screen. Any help would be appreciated. (Copy and paste the entire page to word, then find and replace the existing 15 tables width) Tissuebox (talk) 19:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Changing default order to date rather than spelling?

This was mentioned earlier but I thought I'd start a separate section for discussion. Prior to Tissuebox's creation of the table, the list had been in order of dates rather than in alphabetical order. How would people feel about changing the default order back to being in order of dates? (of course with this type of table people can change the sorting order by clicking either 'Title' or 'Year' at the top of the table, but I'm talking about the order that appears when you first load the page). My earlier argument for this was "I prefer sorting by dates because it's better for browsing if you don't have a specific title in mind, you can see how the genre has evolved over time. Also, it seems to be the wikipedia convention with other lists of this type, like List of time travel science fiction." If there'd be no objections, I'd be fine with doing the work of re-ordering the table myself. Hypnosifl (talk) 17:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Remove the "Type"

Do we really need the "Type" column? The works are already split in sections. ~~Nicholas A. Chambers 15:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholas.a.chambers (talk • contribs)

I second this.--Pittsburghmuggle (talk) 01:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, there are sections which still need the "type" cell (gaming, where the "type" cell serves for indicating a platform for which the game was intended), however if you sure that a table doesn't need this cell, feel free to remove it, here's a quick tip (music table, centered):
{| class="wikitable" border="1"
|-
!width=250px|Title||Year!!class="unsortable"|Author and notes
|-
|First song
|2000
|-
|Second song
|2001
|}

where "|-" - is a separating table row. Result:

Title Year Author and notes
First song name 2000
Second song name 2001

For further information about table rearrangement, read Userpd (talk) 20:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Search by date: not title

As an organic art form the table of fiction should be arranged chronologically in production order.

That would allow interested parties - to move down the list and be able to cross reference the entries against other similar works.

By putting them alphabetically all you have is a list. One which has no meaning unless you know the work you want.

It just means going up and down the table looking for works; from a particular period e.g. the 1970s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.133.226 (talk) 22:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

After writing the above I noticed my request has already been made. So I am sorry to reiterate. But it's quite obvious that the list should be chronological. My suggestion would be to have a table with (X) as Genres and (Y) as Year. Then genre (causes) can be viewed and referenced against year of creation. It would be interesting to note how fashions changes (say from outer space to biological back to nuclear) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.133.226 (talk) 22:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
There's a way of creating a table/list that can be resorted for the reader by clicking the column header. Sadly, I don't know how to do that. Perhaps someone else reading here does? --MartinezMD (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
There is some information on sortable tables here: Help:Sorting; and also here: Table_markup#Sorting. Hope that helps. Scribeoflight (talk) 15:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


The Fittest

I noticed no mention of The Fittest (1955) by J. T. McIntosh , a survivor-ist novel like THE ROAD... (tho not in the same league) maybe the best novel McIntosh wrote.--aajacksoniv (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Opps

Sorry about putting Dr Who in the wrong place, but I question the poison sky in enviromental(its an alien invasion) as to other serials. "Inferno" (1970), science causing enviromental catastrophey. ; "The Sontaran Experiment" (1975); Environtal "Pyramids of Mars" (1975); Alen invasion (sort of) [[Last of the Time Lords" (2007)alien invasion, day of the Daleks, set after a number of human wars. [[Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)]]

One format for writing

Let's write in one table format it's a very simple and more receptive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UnholyFreezz (talk • contribs) 07:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It's the start of the end of the world as we know it

Should the article list subject matter that features things that may, but have not (and may not) lead to a wider applocalypse? I refer specicialy to Black Sheep, which onlt affects one township, but may spread to a wider crisis, but then again may not[[Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)]]

Sure - Given the speculative fiction focus of the piece, such work (if already covered in the wiki) is often included. The basic criterion surrounding the above also applies to all Cold War nuclear fiction (ie On the Beach) at this point. MrZaiustalk 15:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Except that on the beach is set after a nuclear holocaust, and we are told that they will all die, that they are the only ones left. I do not see how it is the end of the world eqautes with it might be, a quike look raises the issue of The Beford Incident, a good film but, not about an apoclaypse (or even a nulear war, just one incident that may or may not lead to one)[[Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)]]

Dubious claims (and a few justifications), films Human wars. The Bedford Incident (alagory about nuclear war), Barefoot Gen, Black Rain, By Dawn's Early Light (but there is a limited nuclear war, and there is a lot of devistation), Neo-Human Casshern (In the wrong section?), City of Ember (In the wrong section?), Delicatessen (In the wrong section?), Fail-Safe, The Handmaid's Tale (In the wrong section?), Mindwarp (In the wrong section?), World War III, Zardoz (In the wrong section?), I move that this list should only include those items that either involve a global (or wider) apocalypse or those that cover its aftermath. Not just disater movies, even if the disaster is war. [[Slatersteven (talk) 17:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)]]

Agreed in part, but something like 28 days, is only on a national level, but still fits the apocalyptic framework. --Leivick (talk) 19:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I suppose so. So films should only be included that have either a global or national apcoalypse (though this could mean that any film that shows national collapse (such as Downfall) has a place on this list), or its aftermath. I feel that there needs to be a tighter criteria applied so as to ensure this olist can be used to guide those who specificaly are looking for material on the subject of the end of civilisation (or worse).[[Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)]]
You were right the second time and wrong the first - Words like "global" and "national" narrow it down too much. Speculative fiction about an apocalyptic end to civilization is the focus here, which allows for inclusion of more fanciful locales more effectively than the modern nation-state paradigm can - Vital, in this context. MrZaiustalk 16:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
But its also a bit vague. Is the film Apocalypto about the end of (a) civilisation or not? it's certainly (as its name implies) apocalyptic but only within a limited area and culture (which then neatly brings us back to Downfall). Then we have films like Earthquake which do show the colapase of society within the context of a natural disaster, but which are not strikley apocalyptic (except in the most localised sense), somewhat in fact like 28 days later.[[Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)]]

Red Dwarf

I am not sure Red Dwarf should be classed as a post-apocalyptic fiction. It is suggested in it that the human race might have actually evovled into higher beings, although it is also fair to say that the ants might have taken over. --Welshsocialist (talk) 00:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to agree.Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Left 4 Dead

Wouldn't Left 4 Dead fall under pandemic/plague? The "zombies" are considered to be infected by a virus, the worst cases being the "boss infected". 74.178.139.107 (talk) 22:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Nuke it till it squeeks

As there is a seperate list of Nuclear war fiction should not those entires that a duplicated be rtemoved from this list (as the whole reason for that page is to avoid making this one unwieldy)?Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

"Type"

Isn't all of the information in the "Type" columns already covered in the section headings? "World War III and other apocalyptic wars (between humans)" are all of the type "Human wars", "Pandemic (plague)" are all of the type "Plague", ... Geuiwogbil (Talk) 09:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_apocalyptic_and_post-apocalyptic_fiction/Archive_1&oldid=1136364189"