Talk:Steampunk/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Final Fantasy

I removed the following from the article:

"The game revolves around a group trying to overthrow a powerful dictatorship. This distopian future/past/fantasy world is another steam punk staple."

I'm not so sure whether the presumed "distopian [sic] future/past/fantasy world" is indeed "another steam punk [sic] staple". Indeed, I'd say steampunk is typically not so dystopian; cyberpunk and perhaps dieselpunk might be, but steampunk is rather more utopian most of the time. (Removed that first sentence also, because without the second it didn't seem to make much sense to keep it.) Ottens (talk) 12:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The "-punk" implies dystopia, because all -punk genres are descended from cyberpunk one way or another. That Victorian fantasy has been rather co-opted into the genre doesn't negate that. That said, the text you've removed is just someone's personal commentary, so you were right to get rid. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Steampunk was never seriously coined to be a kind of "Victorian cyberpunk". And quite contrary to cyberpunk, the majority of steampunk fiction is not dystopian. I wouldn't say it's all utopian, though. Ottens (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Distopian or Utopian, i don't see why it matters. The original comment quoted above didn't bother to coherently explain the reasoning behind labeling the piece as steampunk, so i understand why it was removed. However i'm certain the game should be mentioned in the article; it's an excellent example. i'll explain:
The fantasy setting of Final Fantasy VI is specifically stated in-game to include young civilization based on the re-discovery of steam power. The setting combines elements of medieval/D&D type fantasy with science fiction, as well as mythological and religious iconography to some extent. The game features steam powered vehicles, air ships that resemble a dirigible/Zeppelin type, and clockworks are seen as well as futuristic sci-fi technology. When i think of 'steam punk', the first thing that comes to my mind is the concept artwork from this title. The artistic design of the game, im sure, would be of particular interest to any fan of the steampunk genre, though it's probobly not as victorian-inspired as is typical, as it seems to have more af an eastern influence.
The following is taken from the Wikipedia page for the game:
"...Final Fantasy VI is set in a steampunk environment. The structure of society parallels that of the latter half of the 19th century, with opera and the fine arts serving as recurring motifs throughout the game,[17] and a level of technology comparable to that of the Second Industrial Revolution. Railroads are in place and a coal mining operation is run in the northern town of Narshe. Additionally, several examples of modern engineering and weaponry (such as a chainsaw, power drill, and automatic crossbow) have been developed in the kingdom of Figaro. However, communication systems have not reached significant levels of development, with letters sent by way of carrier pigeon serving as the most common means of long-distance communication."
i'm not an expert at classifying fiction, but regardless of the "-topian" tone of the piece, it seems like a very clear cut example of 'steam punk' fantasy to me. It also seems like a very unique example. it's clear to me that it belongs in the 'steampunk' article, even if only as a foot note. i'm going to proceed to find an appropriate way to include it. i'm not sure under which heading it was origonaly mentioned, it doesn't seem to fit anywhere in the current article
-ross

Renamed "Influences" section

I renamed the "Influences" section into "Early steampunk" because really only the first sentence of that section dealt with influences, while the rest is about early works of steampunk fiction. (Even before my rewrite.) Ottens (talk) 14:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe "Proto-steampunk" would be better? As they are steampunk before the word or deifnition existed?

I think "recent streampunk" should also get renamed. Not sure what to - "Expansion of" or "Popularisation of" or somesuch? "Recent" seems to be a magnet for unimportant additions, and the important exampes are really not that recent.Yobmod (talk) 12:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree to rename at least recent steampunk, if only to discourage people from constantly adding new works of steampunk fiction to that section. I suggest "Steampunk as popular fiction".

For what is now called "Early steampunk", I think "Proto-steampunk" would work better considering that most of the works discussed there were indeed published before the term "steampunk" was even coined. Ottens (talk) 21:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and renamed the sections we discussed. Ottens (talk) 11:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me.Yobmod (talk) 07:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Joss Whedon's Firefly

I think the popular Firefly series could be used as a good example in this article. The setting was less 'victorian' and more 'cowboyish' but it still is an amazing fusion of the steam age with science fiction. To see cowboys and cattle-rustlers on the same screen as spaceships and technology is quite fun to watch and is indicative of the steampunk genre. Chordie (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not steampunk, it's appropriate technology. It's really the opposite of steampunk - it's set in the high-tech future and yet makes use of mundane and practical solutions. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Steamfashion

Updated the external links section to include the Steamfashion Livejournal community. It is the largest online steampunk community in the world, and it has numerous text and image references to steampunk fashion and steampunk in general. Also added the Steampunk Style test, as it contains good examples and summaries of the eight most common steampunk fashion archetypes. Jaborwhalky (talk) 17:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Subculture and fashion

The fashion portion of the subculture section is clearly inaccurate and not supported by its references. Mohawks, extensive piercings, and stompy boots are not steampunk (they are goth, deathrock, and punk in varying degrees, although the punks will probably be angry at being referenced here at all). While there may be steampunk fans who wear mohawks with goggles and big boots (I have never seen them, but I'm willing to take that on faith), they represent a very small minority in the steampunk fashion community. The section as it stands gives an incorrect view of steampunk fashion, and it ignores the variety of dress that can be found in the genre. Also, there is no cited evidence for those claims. There is a "citation needed" marker that has been there for ages, and the one reliable reference that is given (the San Francisco Chronicle article) says nothing to support the idea of mohawks and big boots (in fact, it more supports the accurate statement that steampunk fashion is about formal suits and bustle gowns). Can we please do something to make this section accurate? Thank you. Jaborwhalky (talk) 18:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd support removing those sentences that still have citation tags for a first step. Would be great if you could write an initial short paragraph here, so people can check the sources and agree beforehand. Thanks!Yobmod (talk) 09:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

eg this edit by itself would seem mostly ok, if the sources agree:

"Steampunk" fashion has no set guidelines, but tends to synthesize modern or alternative styles as filtered through the Victorian era. This may include formal gowns with collections of pocket watches, corsets with tattered petticoats, Victorian suits with goggles and boots, vintage explorer or military clothing, and the Lolita fashion and aristocrat styles. Common archetypes for steampunk fashion are aristocrats, gadgeteers, scientists, explorers, engineer-soldiers, ragamuffins, and even ordinary people living in a steampunk world.

although i'm unsure what "even ordinary people living in a steampunk world" means. There is no, and never was a "Steampunk world". Even if sourced, it doesn't make sense. Does it mean ordinary Victorian clothing? Or the clothes of extras in (fictional) steampunk films? Needs to be re-written, or removed if the source cannot clarify.

How about the following:

"Steampunk fashion" has no set guidelines, but tends to synthesize modern styles as filtered through the Victorian era. This may include gowns, corsets, petticoats and bustles; gentlemen's suits with vests, coats and spats; or even military-inspired garments. Often, steampunk outfits will be accented with a mixture technological and period accessories: timepieces, parasols, goggles and ray guns. Even modern accessories like cell phones or iPods can be found in steampunk outfits, after being modified to give them the appearance of Victorian-made objects. Aspects of steampunk fashion have been anticipated by mainstream high fashion, the Lolita fashion and aristocrat styles, neo-Victorianism, and the romantic goth subculture. Common archetypes for steampunk fashion are aristocrats, gadgeteers, scientists, explorers, engineer-soldiers, ragamuffins, and even ordinary people found as supporting or background characters in steampunk fiction and movies.

I have been very careful to ensure that each thing listed is included in the cited references. The one exception is the lolita fashion, which is not referenced in the steampunk articles. However, as lolita fashion is very clearly based on Victorian children's clothing I am willing to take that one on faith. Thank you. Jaborwhalky (talk) 19:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Wiki linked the archetypes. The redlinked compound or neologistic words present a problem. Thisnk it would only work as a quote, or have them omited. "Gadgeteer" without quotes implies that WP thinks it is a real word :-).Yobmod (talk) 07:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Something like this?

"Steampunk fashion" has no set guidelines, but tends to synthesize modern styles as filtered through the Victorian era. This may include gowns, corsets, petticoats and bustles; gentlemen's suits with vests, coats and spats; or even military-inspired garments. Often, steampunk outfits will be accented with a mixture technological and period accessories: timepieces, parasols, goggles and ray guns. Even modern accessories like cell phones or iPods can be found in steampunk outfits, after being modified to give them the appearance of Victorian-made objects. Aspects of steampunk fashion have been anticipated by mainstream high fashion, the Lolita fashion and aristocrat styles, neo-Victorianism, and the romantic goth subculture. Common archetypes for steampunk fashion are aristocrats, "gadgeteers", scientists, explorers, engineer-soldiers, ragamuffins, and even ordinary people found as supporting or background characters in steampunk fiction and movies.

To start with, why don't we update the fashion section with the general description above, and then we can continue working on or discussing the archetypes section late. Jaborwhalky (talk) 16:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Because there have been no objections to the above fashion summary, I have updated the steampunk entry with it (but without the archetypes list). We can discuss the archetypes separately, but this way the fashion part of the subculture section will be accurate and fully cited. Jaborwhalky (talk) 18:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Oki doke, looking good. the only problem with the archetypes for me is that using neologisms is not so informative to the readers. As there is no such thing as a gadgeteer, it doesn't inform when saying people dress up as a gadgeteer - the Streampunk fashion designers are the ones detirminging what a gadgeteer should look like, so it becomes circular. Does the list come whole cloth from one of the sources? If so, we could write

"Fashion designer xxx identifies common archetypes that inspire steampunk fashion, including "aristocrats, gadgeteers, scientists, explorers, engineer-soldiers, ragamuffins" and even ordinary people found as supporting or background characters in steampunk fiction and movies.^ref

Hence the made-up words are blamed on source, instead of editors here. But that depends on what the source actualls says.Yobmod (talk) 07:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The trouble here is that this is the terminology being used by people in the subculture to describe different types of steampunk outfits. It's akin to describing styles of the goth subculture as "cyber-goth," "deathrocker," "romantic goth," etc. They're terms that have a legitimate meaning in the context of the genre and the subculture and how people talk about them, but outside of that context it doesn't have a universal meaning. It's much like the term "mad scientist" before it entered mainstream use. Jaborwhalky (talk) 17:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Jepp, i understand that. But using words that are only understood by the subculture in a general use encylopedia is definitely problematic. We have a vague idea of what a gadgeteer would look like, but an Indian reader with English as a second language to a high standard should not be confronted by a neologism that we cannot even define. I wouldn't revert addition of the other archetypes though :-).Yobmod (talk) 09:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, how about this then?:

Common archetypes for steampunk fashion are aristocrats, scientists, explorers, military engineers, ragamuffins, and even ordinary people found as supporting or background characters in steampunk fiction and movies.

If I've got an ok here, I'll go ahead and add this part. Jaborwhalky (talk) 03:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Maybe just engineers is enough, without the qualifier (then could cover all types, including military and gadget), but that's up to you.Yobmod (talk) 13:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

External Links : Steampunk Convention

Would it be appropriate to add an external link to the Calif Steampunk Convention ( www.steampunkconvention.com )? SilverHG (talk) 18:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Truax note

The reference to "Thomas Truax" is supposed to link to an issue of Steampunk Magazine, however it links to an issue of the Gatehouse Gazette. I would correct it, however I'm not sure what issue of Steampunk Magazine it is supposed to refer to. Ottens (talk) 22:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed this example anyway, per my reasoning above(Dr. Steel). Until the articles about these can prove their notability, i don't think they improve this article at all. Notability has to be a minimum for inclusion here, or there is no arguement against including any local band that gets a review in the local paper. It should be readded when the notability of the artist is shown on his page.Yobmod (talk) 08:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Chitty Chitty Bang Bang

Could Ian Fleming's Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (1964 book, 1968 film) count as early steampunk? It does have all that brass, presented in a post-brass, post-steam era. A Norwegian follower is Flåklypa Grand Prix (1975 film). --LA2 (talk) 00:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you have answered your own question: "post-steam." (Emperor (talk) 01:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC))

Chitty Chitty Bang Bang is pretty straight-up Edwardian Scientific Romance, without any of the temporal shift that characterises steampunk. Writing it in 1964 isn't the same as setting it in 1964. OTOH, any sort of modern-period Chitty retrospective that references it could be a fine opportunity for new steampunk.

In fact, Chitty might even class as a form of retro-futurism. The "old car" is in fact a vehicle from the future 1920's (see Chitty Bang Bang - even the name dates itself to post-WW1), whilst the setting, that of the film in particular, is antebellum Edwardian. There's a comment by Fleming (some autobiog from around the time that the film was being made) that he'd imagined then whole lot some time around 1920 in an alternative history where WW1 never happened. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Missing Titles

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

Of course, if you find that there is valid content that needs adding, you could do it yourself. Provided that you format it correctly, and add references, obviously. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thing is an entry like this can't mention everything - it has to bring in examples that help illustrate points and helps the entry in general rather than trying to be an exhaustive catalogue. The more comprehensive list can be found here: List of steampunk works, although what one person considers to be Steampunk may differ from other people's so if in doubt raise it on the talk page there (worth noting that the main entry has to make a good case for it otherwise it veers into original research as it is purely your opinion). (Emperor (talk) 18:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC))

Castle in the Sky is to me the seminal steampunk work. beefman (talk) 05:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Whitechapel Gods by S.M. Peters is an excellent steampunk work of fiction.

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

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

Brazil & Wild Wild West

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

Good call. Brazil is not even vaguely steampunk, as has been discussed at length in the past. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 13:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we remove Brazil about once a month from the List of steampunk works!! That is the one that mystifies me. Wild Wild West is worth a mention on the list but doesn't seem steamy enough to be worth mentioning here (although it is a good example of the kind cross-genres in the Weird West/Science fiction Western vein, as it is Steampunk in the Wild West). As I've said here and elsewhere on similar entries we should only be using relevant examples which help show points and are generally useful in discussing the subject. We aren't trying to be comprehensive because you just end up with "and... and... and..." which is just a stealth list. (Emperor (talk) 16:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC))

Exactly correct, Emperor! I do not know what it is that convinces people Brazil is steampunk, but they just keep adding it to the list. I agree with your other points, as well. Only the best examples need be mentioned in this article. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 19:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed to all the above. Also both the WWW TV series and film are already in the article!Yobmod (talk) 09:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC),

I think the reason many people think Brazil is steampunk is the ducts. It's a futuristic world, but they still use all these old, tangled ducts. I still don't think it's enough to make it a steampunk film though. KenFehling (talk) 05:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Here are only a few-

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

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

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

A better one [7]

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

For me the look of Brazil has more in common with Dieselpunk than Steampunk with the Art Deco aesthetic. Terry Gilliams' The Adventures of Baron Munchausen has more Clockpunk/Steampunk elements in it than Brazil.Rifleman jay (talk) 14:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Dr.Steel?

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

Dr. Steel combines aspects of both steampunk and pulp mad science, and he has a significant fanbase. He would be appropriate to include as another example of steampunk music, along with the Clockwork Dolls and the Unextraordinary Gentlemen. Jaborwhalky (talk) 17:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Why are more examples needed? There is a List of steampunk works for examples. What is needed is (sourced) discusion of what "steampunk" music even means. Just dressing up in second hand clothes? Examples do nothing to help readers understand, unless they already know the bands (hence probably know more about this genre than the article!), which for 99.999% of the world is not the case.Yobmod (talk) 09:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Joshua Pfeiffer of Vernian Process founded the concept of "steampunk music" back around 2003, but as the earliest documentation is either on Livejournal or an online message board I have no idea whether it is possible to cite that. Do we want to remove everyone but him from the music section and see if he can provide documentation as to what "steampunk music" is? Or do we simply want to remove music from the section on subculture and direct the curious toward the list? Jaborwhalky (talk) 19:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

I have no association with the band, I am not some street teamer or anyone attempting 'viral marketing'. But surely MTV is a reliable enough source of reference for Doctor Steel to be included? I am not bothered one way or the other, but there seems to be a strange assumption that everyone who adds it is a viral marketer, even when they include a valid enough looking reference. If you can explain to me why MTV is not reliable enough then fair enough. magnius (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Dr. Steel wasn't re3moved from wikipedia, it was moved to the most appropriate page - the one that exists for listing steampunk bands. This is the page for discussing and describing steampunk as a whole genre.Yobmod (talk) 08:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

OIC. It might then be a good idea to put a note in the music section saying "see also steampunk works" to show these other bands. I see the page noted up in the fiction section, which is why I did not make the connection way down here in the subculture section, and I doubt many others will either. Just a suggestion to clear up any future confusion. Thanks. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Godd idea! Done.Yobmod (talk) 10:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)