Jump to content

Talk:Steampunk/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

New reference source

found this on 3QD today, it's an article in the UK Guardian re: steampunk. I'm never signed in, so I can't do any edits myself, but it's got lots of nice references for getting the page annotated a little better. Thats the problem with strange new lifestyle/literary genres poking up - we never get 'real' references until after the movement is well underway, if at all.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2008/oct/17/popandrock2 is the link - but it's the UK Guardian, from Friday, October 17th, 2008.

Hope that helps people out! 198.204.92.102 (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)librarian

Thanks, but this was added 2 days ago. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
The Clockwork Quartet seems unlikely to fit notability guidelines at this time. Bands like Unextraordinary Gentlemen, and The Clockwork Dolls aren't included in the list for the same reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.82.98.50 (talk) 01:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Rubbish, they are mentioned in a reliable source. That is what is needed. -—RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 01:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Why did you unalphabetize the list of bands?? I moved them around so they would be listed alpabetically instead of the random way they were listed previously. I also removed that line from the Guardian that was an assumption based on the writers limited knowledge of Steampunk influenced music. Not all Steampunk bands have those elements in their music, and that statement is very misleading. EDIT: Upon further research that quote was misquoted in the first place. The author was specifically talking about the element in Thomas Truax music, not Steampunk in general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.82.98.50 (talk) 17:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Who are you to that author's "limited knowledge"? What makes you an expert? We have a quote from notable and reliable source, you cannot alter or remove it based on your presumptions of greater or wider knowledge. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 00:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually I happen to be one of the first people to attempt to make Steampunk themed music with Vernian Process. For some reason my old FACT.50 account password is gone, and I haven't gotten around to looking for it, since I don't need to be logged in to post. I also spend a decent amount of time researching new bands that claim Steampunk/Neo-Victorian influences, as well as running the only Steampunk themed record label. So yes I'd say I'm pretty qualifieed to make that statement. My point was that this author's knowledge of Steampunk music is based on her/his very limited interviews with a handful of new UK based steampunk musicians (besides Truax who has been around a while). And that statement was mis-quoted in the first place. Just look at the article, the author specifically used that analogy to describe one very niche artist. Here I even copied the whole paragraph so you can see it:
"I don't mind being known as a steampunk, because it represents things I have a fondness for," says Truax, whose music can be said to typify SP. Though internet debates rage about exactly what constitutes the SP sound, Truax has the major components, including sonorous, half-spoken vocals and melancholy melodies influenced by Tom Waits and eastern European Gypsy bands.
That description certainly doesn't apply to mine, the Unextraordinary Gentlemen's, Abney Park's, The Clockwork Dolls, Dr. Steel's or Rasputina's sounds. Which make up the most active members of the Steampunk themed musical groups. So yes it should be removed or at least moved to Thomas Truax's own article and not on the general Steampunk entry. And I still don't understand how an artist can be considered notable if they don't even have a single song released yet (Clockwork Quartet)? One live performance does not notability make, even if the band happened to be mentioned in one article. I'm not saying they won't be notable. But why the double standards when it comes to who can and can't be listed as a notable artist on wikipedia? Look at UXG for an example. They aren't listed even though they have done national tours, have been featured in articles and generally fit the ideas of Steampunk music better than most bands claiming the title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.82.98.50 (talk) 20:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Sounds to me like you have a conflict-of-interest, and should not be editing anything having to do with steampunk music. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 23:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't even make sense. Anyone can edit anything on wikipedia. What makes you think you have any authority on the genre? I haven't seen any articles from you about it published in major publications? All I know is that you seem to think you run the Steampunk article. If you were to try and get me banned from editing, I would just go edit it from a different computer. So good luck with your crusade to make everyone think "Steampunk = what you say". Oh and way to completely ignore my many valid points.
Quite wrong, actually. Wikipedia has a policy on conflicts-of-interest, which you can read for yourself. If you are requested or told to stop editing because you have a c-o-i, and continue to do so "from a different computer," then you are a vandal, and will be dealt with accordingly. I will also remind you to assume good faith in future. I do not "seem to think" I "run the Steampunk article," as you say above. As far as what I've published, on this topic or any other, I would say that is well outside your area of knowledge. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 00:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
You don't know anything about my knowledge of the subject. There's a reason I started making music with a Steampunk theme. Because I've been researching it since the late 80's. It is my primary interest. You still haven't addressed any of my points either, which I feel are perfectly valid. About Assuming Good Faith. Why don't you listen to your own words. I pointed out that the quote in the article was mis-quoted and misleading which is a fact. But you continuously reverted my valid edits. As far as coi go, despite my involvement within the steampunk community I always keep things neutral and NPOV when I edit articles. If I were to start saying one band or another was the only Steampunk music, or the primary example of it, then you could call me on coi. But I don't do that. I present facts and references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.82.98.50 (talk) 00:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
The Clockwork Quartet now have some music online at http://www.clockworkquartet.com. The Clockwork Quartet have also just had a 4 page feature in UK's Bizarre Magazine (doesn't seem to be a free online copy of the article). I believe they now qualify under Wikipedia's notability guidelines for musicians and ensembles, so I am re-adding them to the article. FYI I am the band's producer. Nice to meet you folks. ThreeMinutesOlder (talk) 10:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Without a verifiable, and unbiased reference, "The Clockwork Quartet" cannot be added to this article. Official websites and a claim from the bands producer do not count, we need a third party website that can be linked from wikipedia, and that does not include blogs. magnius (talk) 13:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Why does the Guardian article not count? It existed in print as a full page article, as well as on the website in blog form. ThreeMinutesOlder (talk) 13:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Because the Grauniad ref doesn't refer to a gig, it only refers to the future possibility of one. Which issue of Bizarre? I'm not going to buy one, but if I can find some rubber gloves I might flick through it in the newsagent. And some dark glasses. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
The January issue of Bizarre has a special on Steampunk, in which The Clockwork Quartet has a 4 page feature. Rubber gloves seconded - our feature looks positively wholesome compared to some of the magazine! They also seem to have decided that we're a musical rather than a band. We're a group of musicians who produce narrative songs, both studio recorded and on stage - I am not sure how to apply the distinction between musical and band. Perhaps we can have an honourable mention of the first citable Steampunk musical instead? ThreeMinutesOlder (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Print cannot be linked to from this article, and blogs are unacceptable references usually, but I looked on your website and could see no evidence of your blog anyway, just a message saying "Coming Soon". Don't get me wrong, I love what I am hearing and agree, it IS Steampunk, but we need a verifiable, independent source that can be linked to from this article. It's nothing personal, just (I think silly) wiki rules. It took a loooong time to finally get a source that would allow Dr Steel to be included. magnius (talk) 13:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
We were referenced in the blog of a reputable mainstream newspaper (The Guardian) - not our own blog - I think there has been some confusion. (Glad you like the music, by the way!) ThreeMinutesOlder (talk) 13:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm, hold on, there is an online Guardian article that mentions the band, I'm sure that it must be acceptable magnius (talk) 13:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I've added it again, I don't see why the reference should be acceptable for Abney, but not TCQ. Seems perfectly valid to me. magnius (talk) 13:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Because Abney Park are a band who play gigs, The Clockwork Quartet are (as described by that ref) someone's back-bedroom project who might play a gig in the future. As this is the lead article for a whole genre, I fail to see how they can be sufficiently notable for a mention anyway, even assuming that their gig (if it happened) is supported by a ref (if one exists). We've just had a fairly heated argument that George Melies had to be erased fronm the canon of steampunk, yet this band (who still aspire to being one-hit wonders) seemingly deserve billing on the main article!
Just to put a brake on the referencing editors here but when did it become a condition that cited sources must be online? True online sources are easier to verify but the VAST amount of reference material for any subject is still bound in dead tree editions. If, as an example, a major newspaper choose to print an article but choose not to put that article with their online archive that does not suddenly make it an invalid source. ~ Brother William (talk) 17:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I think any band/project that has a cite would be great at the List of steampunk works, but agree that this article should be about the genre as a whole, therefore only the most noteworthy examples should be on this page. The examples on this page are only at all useful if the reader has heard of them, so non-notable bands really don't inform the reader. Hence i would also put Dr. Steel and Unextroadinary Gentlemen on the list page, as not being particularly notable. This page is not so long yet, but combined with the list it would be, so if we are going to keep a seperate main article and list of examples, then there must be some criteria for diciding what goes where, and notability seems the easiest in most cases. (Most notable here, along with firsts/pioneers, less-notable on the list.)Yobmod (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Q: In what sense is a band with no releases that has never played a gig even a band? Do they just dress up in frock-coats and pose with guitars?
This seems unnecessarily aggressive, even ignoring the fact that we do have tracks released. A band is still a band if it has not performed in the same way that a theatre company is a theatre company even if it has not offered any productions. We are well known in the UK Steampunk scene, and notable enough to have been included in several articles on Steampunk in the UK press (fyi we have been interviewed for more articles than have yet been published). We have performed to select audiences, and we have produced a number of studio tracks, but until recently none of these have been on public release. Just because something doesn't exist on the internet doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. If wikipedia guidelines suggest that, given what is publicly available and verifiable, The Clockwork Quartet does not satisfy the criteria for being included in this article then so be it - as the band's producer, I do not wish to be accused of conflict of interest - but the above comment suggests article ownership and a presumption of other users' ignorance. ThreeMinutesOlder (talk) 19:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Which is why wikipedia list them at the List of steampunk works. It has nothing to do with ownership or ignorance, it is the fact that we have made a special page exactly for listing the hundreds of works of steampunk that can simply not be presented in this article while maintaining a well written encylopedia article. works or bands should only be in this article if they illuminate a particular point about steampunk, with a reliable source to back it up. Any band that has nothing more to be written about other than "they exist and are steampunk" should go to the list. Note that the more lenient WP:Music notability guidelines expect a band to release 2 albums to be notable or to have a charted release, amoungst other things - when editors say notable, they are referring to the wikipedia guielines, not their own opinions.Yobmod (talk) 08:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

First picture on the article

While the comptuer modified in steampunk style is gorgeous I don't think it's the best picture to have as the first picture of the article. Steampunk is primarly a genre of fiction, so I think it would be more relevant to have a picture of some steampunk fiction, for example cover of a stempunk novel or images from a steampunk comic or movie.Shubi (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a valid point, although such images are likely to be 'Non-free' and hence would not be permitted for use on this page. EdJogg (talk) 01:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
That was the problem - a book cover for example would not be fair use. Any considering the number of citations, Steampunk's status as primarily a fiction genre is not so overwhelming. Almost all substantial sources talk more about the fashion and music nowadays (I found the same while looking for cites on Cyberpunk).Yobmod (talk) 09:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Kyle Cassidy has made a nice steampunk photo-illustration available in the commons, so I put that in. Dd-b (talk) 20:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I found a picture of Abraham Lincoln with a chain gun instead of an arm. It looks very steampunky, and can be found by searching "steampunk" and then looking in images. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.74.64.167 (talk) 19:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

While entertaining the picture of Lincoln doesn't belong anywhere on this article Halofanatic333 (talk) 12:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Paris train pic and sentence

A couple of attempts have been made to add this, which were then reverted due to lack of source. I'd say that if a source cannot be provided, removal is better than simply tagging and waiting for a cite that will never come. The photo seems to be user-made, which hints at original research imo.Yobmod (talk) 13:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikilinks are never reliable sources, and the François Schuiten page does not even contain the word Steampunk. Please stop edit warring, and discuss on the talk page. preferably with a reason that a citation calling the station Steampunk style is not being given.Yobmod (talk) 14:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

SOFIXIT
A simple question: Do you believe that Arts & Metiers isn't deliberately themed in a steampunk style? If you don't, then by all means revert additions that claim it is. If you do (and it seems fairly obvious to any passenger), then how about doing something constructive instead, and doing the legwork yourself to assemble sources. WP:RS is there as a defence against inaccuracy, not as a hobby for pedants who solely wish to barricade against the efforts of others. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
No, i don't believe it is Steampunk, i think it is Neo-Victorian with no link to the history of the genre, as it looks functional and not anachronistic. I also think it adds very little to the article, which does not need just another example, therefore removing it is fixing. The onus on finding sources is on the person adding the "information", dumping uncited opinion into article with the expectation that long-term contributing editors will fix the damage is not what i would call collaboration. Yobmod (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
If you think that decorating the interior walls of railway stations in burnished copper is "Neo-Victorian" but not Steampunk, then I suspect you've rather over-estimated the home life of our own dear Queen. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to point out that my distinction between the two is not all in my head: i read it at the Neo-Victorian page, and have been on a tour of a victorian brewery that heavily used copper (including thelight fitting and bar of the attached pub) - hence imo, use of copper as a functional material fits better there (and that page is in need of pictures!), and only becomes Steampunk if used in a non-functional use on anacronistic tech, like a coppper covered iPod. Does that make sense?
If such a distinction doesn't exist, should the pages instead be merged? The current neo-victorian page sounds very steampunky, but is not well sourced, so not sure it is correct.Yobmod (talk) 08:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Band with conflicts of interest

Can people give rational reasons why most bands should not simply be listed at the list of steampunk works, given that they only have passing mentions calling them steampunk? I see it as a purely editorial decision, in that this article is for describing the multiple genres of fashion, literature, film and music that are called steampunk, and listing each and every band or work damages the article unless they illuminate a sourced point about these genres.

As most of the edits to this page are fans or creators of bands/works, should we just merge the list page into this? I think this would be a detriment to wikipedia's coverage of the genre, and result in a poorly written and formatted article, but the constant complaining that editors are somehow bullying minor bands by not alowing them more prominent advertising space on wikipedia is really getting old.

Note, imo, only 4 (at most!) bands need to be mentioned, preferably the 4 most notable, with wikipages of their own that would survive AfD, that would illustrate the only sourced point about steampunk music: that we have no idea what it is, and it has no thematic cohesion yet. (At the moment, this would exclude Clockwork Quartet, Thomas Truax, Dr. Steel).

So do we have a consensus to either: merge, or only keep the most notable examples on this page.Yobmod (talk) 08:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

There is steampunk music which is symphonic. Why just mention one kind of music? Besides, I don't know of any "bands" which are actually worth more than a brief mention. It could be said that anything too typical as might be performed by a rock band is certainly not steampunk. Maybe if the group has ophcicaledes or saxhorns? 75.48.38.184 (talk) 21:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, whether a band is "worth more than a brief mention" is simply your opinion. We have bands and musicians listed who have articles and/or references to show their notability. If you know of bands that should be listed, and can provide sources for same, go ahead and add them. But, do not insert commentary into the article. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 22:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

disambig

There are now 5 (or more?) articles that could be searched for using Steampunk. The genre, list, comic, anthology and magazine. The current old hatnote cannot could not cope with this, so i created a disambig page, but kept this as the main page.Yobmod (talk) 09:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Uncited paragraphs

The final uncited paragraphs i'm moving here. No-one found tags after 2 months, so i think they are OR.



Yobmod (talk) 14:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Steampunk technology

What is this section for? Can it exist at all, given its massively WP:OR nature?

As it stands, it appears to be one editor's WP:OR views on which materials are "genuinely steampunk". Even within that, it's anachronistic. Engineered stone is a fine steampunk material, as is engineered wood (plywood was in widespread use for much of the era, albeit not particle board or MDF). Steel was rarely used by the Victorians until fairly late and they favoured cast or wrought iron instead. Not to mention the utter lack of WP:RS.

Now here's the crunch: there's no such thing as steampunk. It's a modern fiction, not a historical reality. So it is ridiculous to describe it as if it were.

Can we describe the materials used by steampunks today? Yes, and we might have to do it twice: Once for the materials they claim to be using (Harris tweed, brass and ivory) and once for the actual materials in use: nylon, painted plastic and celluloid. We cannot say with a straight face that "steampunks don't use synthetic fabrics because they didn't exist" - just look at the level of costuming at any even today! Steampunks are even worse than the SCA for anachronistic fabrics.

Then there's the issue of deliberate anachronism by contemporary steampunks. Show me one steampunk who will turn down a nice shiny piece of titanium! Not to mention the cybergoth crossovers with their plastic hair and circuit-board underwear.

So what is this section about? A consensus description of "favoured materials for the scene"? (which needs sourcing, and toning down from its absolutist position). Or a WP:GUIDE on how to make your own garb? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression that consensus existed on what defines fictional steampunk technology, but this is a wiki, so revise away! The section is meant to be generalist and is not meant to say that this is absolutely what may or may not be used, but rather that these are the most common fictional aspects across the genre.
References to individual technology/material use-cases would be good, though a cite would not mean that this is absolutely how technology in the fiction must be used.
Costuming, device modeling, and the SCA is apparently a whole other topic from the stories, since costuming is in large part about fantasy and facades. Underneath that mocked-up punk'd typewriter keyboard facade is still a printed circuit board, and absolutely eliminating it breaks the whole fantasy.
DMahalko (talk) 02:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Consensus on Wikipedia might exist as to what defines "steampunk materials", but that would still be WP:OR and so shouldn't go into the article. The OR is the problem, not consensus over it.
The obvious problem at present is in being unclear as to which interpretation the section follows. Steampunks use nylon and claim it's ivory. Would its inclusion or exclusion in the section here be on the basis of what their garb is actually made of, or what it's pretending to be? We might be able to list the second (as you seem to suggest), but that still needs sourcing.
There was recently a hardcore purge of this article where many agreed literary works were removed as not being "steampunk" unless Disney said they were (or somesuch other passive consumerist bobbins). I'm saddened to see that a section like this thus goes unchallenged, especially when the technological basis behind some of its claims was so shaky. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with AD, and moved the sction here. The real-life application of Steampunk really should be sources even more highly than the fiction. See the design and fashion sections - sources for what constitutes Steampunk exist, so writing a section on the Technology without any sources is not excusable.

Steampunk technology

" The fictional world of steampunk books, cartoons, and movies is generally devoid of advanced materials developed after approximately 1930, but may include certain modern sciences such as genetics, that could have been developed using alternate methods. It may also include what are now discredited sciences such as phlogiston theory.

Real crafted objects and costumes built in the style of steampunk usually have exceptions to these design limits. For example the computer interface shown in this article could not exist without the plastics of the LCD panel, or the integrated circuits that make the LCD function. These details are hidden under a facade that tries to outwardly appear to be authentic to the older technology."

I moved this here, as it has no citations, and appears to be one editors OR in it's entirety.YobMod 08:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

j —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.244.191.249 (talk) 04:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Citations would be welcome, if they exist. If year 1930 is a hard limit, then possibly selenium rectifiers would not exist, neither other semiconductor diodes, except cat's whisker detector, useful for weak electric signals. Uikku (talk) 00:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
1930? Well into the age of electricity and internal combustion engines, would seem to take the steam right out of steampunk. Anybody else have a big old dissonant disconnect with that? In Gibson's "Difference Engine" when they wanted a strong light indoors at night it was a limelight, a gaslight with chemical enhancement. 1930 is well into the age of plastics as well; celluloid, cellophane, and bakelite were old stuff by then, and nylon had just been invented. Stretch it another decade or so and you've got things like Vincent motorcycles.
Looks like a working definition of steampunk is creeping perilously close to "anything the Lumps of Lumpington Hall might have used, seen, or done." __ Just plain Bill (talk) 14:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I refer to the opening paragraph of the article as it is at the moment. Did you know that the internal combustion engine (sometimes called as the Otto engine, named after the inventor Nicolaus August Otto) and Diesel engine (named after the inventor Rudolf Diesel) were both invented during the Victorian era? What about electricity then? Here is a excerpt from the article Electricity: "While it had been the early 19th century that had seen rapid progress in electrical science, the late 19th century would see the greatest progress in electrical engineering." So it seems that the original age of steampunk, the Victorian era was not so totally steamy. --Uikku (talk) 08:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Well regarding the materials used you have to look at the world in which the story takes place. Who says all steampunk is on earth? Maybe its on a different planet where a plant grows with a stim that was the same tendancies as ruber? Or if you want to consider steampunk fantasy why cant you mix it with magic, like a rock thats been enchanted with fire wouldn't that rock be used instead of cole? In a novel i had written i had said that engineers used magic as a fuel for their machines. Now some people would say thats a whole in the plot why would they use machines at all then? Well once again you have to concider the back ground maybe magic is unstable or restricted to a few rich families so before you say what can and can't be used think of the envirnment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.14.28 (talk) 21:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steampunk/Archive_6&oldid=1137204047"