User talk:Ottens

Steam Trek

Ottens

Your argument that Steam Trek is not related to steampunk on the whole seems to be contrary to the primary definition of steampunk listed in the entry.

Steam Trek is a literary project focusing on an alternate history wherein the technological extrapolation of steam technology has penetrated into a well known science fiction genre. Steam power and mechanics are the basis for the technology and 19th century Victorian England provides the background, settings, props and character motivations.

All the trappings of steampunk technology and setting are present, for example; Medical technology includes the use of formalin lamps, cerebral phrenology, orgone injections, ect., Engineering technology includes firemen and stokers feeding dilythium coal into a furnace / boiler that powers the ship. The military command structure is copied lock, stock and barrel from late 1800 British traditions including piping onboard, the bell system of time keeping and the look and feel of uniforms.

The paralels to British situations is the essence of Steam Trek in that; Victoria is still on the throne, Britain is in an Empire Building mode (in the solar system instead of on Earth), The prejudice against non-caucations is still present but in the form of anti-alien sentiment, Britain traditional enemies are still present in new forms (German = Klinkon, French = Ferenchi, Russians = Romlians, Orientals = Borj, Irish Fennians = O’Ryans, etc.)

I think your hesitancy to accept Steam Trek as steampunk is that Steam Trek pushes far beyond the 20 to 30 years of divergent history as is present in most writings and extrapolates such historic alteration to 150 years or more. I do not think this distinction between Steam Trek and other steampunk stories is gounds to exclude it from mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen Vossler (talk • contribs) 14:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dieselpunk

I am not sure if you are aware of it or not, but J Milburn has deleted Dieselpunk as "recreation of deleted material." I most definitely think that we should aggressively pursue a deletion review and get this article reinstated. His reasoning is specious. Please contact me at your earliest convenience. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Had I looked before leaving you this message, I would have seen that you already made said request. I have added my opinion on the matter, and I hope that we can convince someone of the article's validity. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there is anything you need, please do not hesitate to ask. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 20:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm happy to take a look at the deletion review, and, believe it or not, would love to see the article restored- I am a huge fan of the literary punk genres (cyberpunk especially) however, an article that looks almost identical to the one I deleted was deleted at an AfD ages ago- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dieselpunk. Anyway, I'll hop over to the deletion review now. J Milburn (talk) 10:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I'd say that your article still suffers from original research. I'd say there just aren't the sources on the subject, which is a shame. I tried to write an article on the subject a while ago, but just couldn't find the sources- all I could really find was stuff directly relating to the roleplaying game, and a few instances of it being used in video game/music reviews. J Milburn (talk) 10:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your version was better. No doubt the DRv will send it to AfD, whereby you can present your case in detail. I personally think a brief mention in steampunk in the "variants of steampunk" section is your best bet, for now, but, to be fair, I am yet to review the sources in detail. I will do so come AfD. J Milburn (talk) 10:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have it on my watchlist. I am planning on helping mount a vigorous defense! Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 22:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to see that things went against us. Unfortunately, none of the research I did came up with anything. Hopefully, the term will catch on, and we can revisit the issue in future. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree, and you are welcome. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 19:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if it has come up but a previous version has been saved here: User:Piecraft/Dieselpunk. I wonder if it'd be worth saving this latest version to your sandbox and perhaps work on improving it there. My main suggestion would be to expand literary punk genres and you can use the dieselpunk section there to produce a condensed version which might encourage more people to add sources. You could then add anything new and helpful into the longer version and see if things reach a critical mass where the section gains enough notability to be split off into its own entry. Just a thought on a possible way forward anyway. (Emperor (talk) 12:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I know Piecraft's version isn't the most recent version - this article has popped up and been deleted numerous times over the years. Which is why I suggested adding the most recent version to your sandbox and working on the literary punk genres. As it stands just restarting the article won't work but building up the dieselpunk section and working on the most recent version could allow it to reach a point where it becomes inevitable that it gets its own entry. (Emperor (talk) 12:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Good stuff - I've been long concerned about that entry as it has been rather lacking despite its potential (I also favour a possible move but could never figure out the best name) but those edits have really helped improve it.

Note I have moved over parts from the now deleted clockpunk entry but it will need a polish and some references but it is a start. (Emperor (talk) 16:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Steampunk (anthology)

The description section you added to Steampunk (anthology) consists entirely of an unattributed blockquote of advertorial text. The source needs to be credited and a real, less advertorial description needs to be written instead of what appears to be a simple, glaring copyright violation from some uncredited source. - Dravecky (talk) 04:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dieselpunk (redux)

Thanks for your message. I will keep track of his progress, and make suggestions where and when I can. To be honest, the lede is problematic for a number of reasons. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will do what I can. Thanks again. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note - the article is problematic and relies too strongly on blogs and sources that don't necessarily address the topic. As it stands it is suffering from problems with WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. I have kept an eye out for sources since we last went round the block with this and they seem lacking. I'll keep an eye on developments though. (Emperor (talk) 01:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Wikistrat

hey Ottens I just reverted that edit because I'm not sure it's accurate. According to Green's twitter profile he's the CTO and lot's of other places on the net...hang on I just checked and he's now a "Technology Advisor" for Wikistrat. so I might revert back and double check with other people, might be worthwhile saying that there were in those roles previously on the wiki. Skinnytony1 (talk) 13:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Steampunk Article and Copper Surfaces

Hi thanks for the streamlined editing. On the copper surfaces thing it's not actually just conjecture. Since you've been contributing to this page much longer than I, I'll just leave it to your discretion on whether or not to bring back that final line about expecting more surfaces to be copper. There's actually a very large industry that has been gaining momentum over the past decade pushing for copper surfaces especially in hospitals and they are now becoming a standard for crash/push plates and elevator buttons with new technology that has come to the fore in just the past year. Here are some articles for your reference.

The following is about how much copper hospital beds have made a large proven difference: Copper Hospital Beds Kill Bacteria, Save Lives
Here's an earlier journal article about MRSA in particular: Copper Alloy Touch Surfaces in Healthcare Facilities: An Effective Solution to Prevent Bacterial Spreading
This one is about new laser tech making copper even more effective (instant): Now metal surfaces can be instant bacteria killers, thanks to new laser treatment technique
And even though copper has been deployed in many other countries already, even the chronically behind US has large scale deployments: Health system deploys copper-infused surfaces to decrease infections
Even skeptical articles, (responding to the more absurd fad-like products) though completely unaware of the recent technology (instant kill) breakthrough, after reading, come through pretty clearly on the value of updating surfaces to copper too: Copper Won’t Save You From Coronavirus

Though surfaces may or may not be the main contributor to the spread of coronavirus, (and much of the literature is about bacteria, not viruses) you can be assured the copper product industry, that was already thriving, is wasting no time leveraging the pandemic. I'll let you decide, but I enjoy a little flavor in articles about speculative fiction. I feel the statement "so we can expect a lot more frequent-touch surfaces to be 'Steampunked' in the near future." is justified with some of the links above. I defer to your judgement, though. Nemesis75 (talk) 07:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2022

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Star Trek: Phase II. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. BilCat (talk) 02:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've suggested Forgotten Trek as a link or source on Talk:Star Trek: Phase II. Maybe you want to weigh in there too? I know it's bad form to add a link to your own website, but I think it's also honestly the case that Forgotten Trek is the best place to find out more about Phase II online. Ottens (talk) 13:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]