This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I apologize, I added a link to the WBC forums, which I realize now had been only recently removed due to it's small size.
While I understand this particular forum is somewhat inactive, I would like to know what general requirements might qualify a forum as a quality link in this article. Particularly, if WBC were to achieve a certain number of members and activity, I hope it could be added here, as I think it is a valuable resource.
24.20.209.236 04:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
On the same topic, the article now links to Basilicus, which in turn points the user to a Wikia wiki with much fewer than 66 members. I appreciate the advertising, but is it sufficiently notable? The only reason I can think of is that Basilicus might be unique as a worldbuilding wiki, and might interest worldbuilders even though it isn't very big yet. -- Brilliand 16:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Please clarify which The Dark Tower the statement refer to. -- Bensin 16:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Since there's apparently no associated pages for Limited and Limitless Magic, could a small explanation be included somewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.134.193 ( talk) 23:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Constructed world should be merged here. Same topic. And this is the commoner term. Goldfritha ( talk) 23:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Whoever put the proposal in didn't start a talk section on it. I support the change-- though since noone including the proposer have talked about it since august, maybe the point is moot anyway.
Wellspring 19:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Suppoerting merge also. Both articles are completely OR and uncited, but this one is far more extensive, so worldbiulding should be a redirect to here. Yobmod ( talk) 09:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I also support the merge. However, since "constructed world" is the less used term, this should be merged to Worldbuilding. I never heard the term "constructed world" used for worldbuilding outside Wikipedia, and a glance at the Google results shows that it is not commonly used for worldbuilding. Goldfritha ( talk) 23:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I believe that the two articles should merge, using material mainly from the current constructed world page while having the same name as the current Worldbuilding page. Series premiere (remake) ( talk) 05:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Can I point out that this article has absolutely no citation. Neither is there anything in the text to explain the source of the terminology it describes and uses. In short, there is absolutely nothing on this page to demonstrate that the terminology which is the subject of the article, is anything except the personal contrivance of the author or authors - and therefore in any way valid. I'm not discrediting the validity of the information, only pointing out taht it does absolutely nothing to verify itself.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.217.231.252 ( talk • contribs)
There used to be external links to several amateur conworlds. Those links have been removed, and now there are dead internal links to non-existent Wikipedia articles about those amateur conworlds.
I don't think any of these amateur conworlds deserve Wikipedia articles, but why remove the external links? Was it done by accident?
If no one objects, I'll remove the nonexistent article links and add back the external links. -- Jim Henry 22:56, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
already the intro says it, "a constructed world is a fictional world". " world" and " universe" in this context are synonyms, and there is no intrinsic difference. dab (ᛏ) 10:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
On the first sentence, is mentioning Ethshar really appropriate since it is mentioned in the next paragraph? The first paragraph seems to only be about Middle-Earth and J.R.R. Tolkien, so the mention of this world throws everything off, unless that world is to be compared to Middle-Earth.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.42.155.5 ( talk • contribs)
Needs to be included. Jeff503 00:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
"Authors typically revise constructed worlds to complete a single work in a series."—Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.100.204.87 ( talk • contribs)
Shouldn't it be sapient(wise or trying to appear wise) settlements rather than sentient (ability to feel)?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.23.56.68 ( talk • contribs)
There are little or no scholarly works concerning conworlding. It sounds to me like most of the references about Tolkien and Sub Creation come from his essay, "On Fairy-Stories" which may be found online.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.238.73.35 ( talk • contribs)
There is enough good content here that I'd like to propose a total rewrite. I've already subdivided and expanded the article into sections, but a front-to-back rewrite would help alot if it's planned in advance.
My todo list is to make a new structure, convert the existing material to that strucuture, and then add source citations. I agree with —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.238.73.35 ( talk • contribs) that there is little scholarly material available; however, there is some good material on the web that can be cited. Winchell Chung has some credentials on the cosmology side and is extremely well-regarded. Geoff Eddyis an amateur but his site is widely linked and well-received. While I'd support academic links in preference to amateur or commercial links, when such are unavailable we have to use what is available just like any other article as long as it is reliable.
This is alot to do in one sitting and I'd rather have buy-in before I proceed. Any objections? Or suggestions?
Wellspring 14:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Wikipedia's contributors. I am Mighty Erick, a conworlder from Wikia. Just to inform the section division of conworlding in Novelas is not working anymore. You can ask to the administrators there to confirm it. At this moment only ConWorlds Wiki and Imagination Wiki (fantasy conworlds only) are working on worldbuilding, so I will update that info at this page.
Any question you can talk us at:
Serpex, current admin of Novelas: http://fiction.wikia.com/wiki/User:Serprex/Miscellaneous
Yanus, admin of ConWorlds Wiki: http://conworld.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:Yanus
Mighty Erick (me), current admin of Imagination: http://conmyth.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:Mightyerick
I hope this info would be useful. Thanks for your collaboration. Mightyerick ( talk) 01:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that there is a lot of "advertising," and not very much in the way of resourceful links in this section, other than a few. Perhaps we should discuss these links and trim down a bit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishmayl ( talk • contribs) 01:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
The links to Wikia Conworlding Communities were wrongly deleted. Those wikias are not personal nor wikia sites with no content, they are big communities, you can look at them and you will find over 60 persons working right there, Conworld has 1900 articles, Pegasus has 800 articles and Basilicus has over 400 articles, it is one of the bigger conworlding communities and one of the biggest collections of conworlds on the web. Please look out before deleting stuff!!! Those wikis are the center of a loooot of conworlding. Furthermore, I did not add tons of links, I just correct the Novelas one (Novelas is not conworlding anymore, that link was since a lot of time ago) replacing it with its current replacements Conmyth and Conworld. Look at them, they are not about generic role playing, they are about pure conworlding.
But I know it may be wrong that I, being involved on that giant project, added it by myself. If any external person wants to add those three links back, thanks a lot!!! Please look them out!! They are big!!!! Mightyerick ( talk) 01:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I have some issues with the following paragraph (which I removed from the article):
It contains quite possibly the longest sentence I have ever seen in a paragraph. The writing badly needs to be reworked so that it is much more comprehensible and makes for smoother reading.— RJH ( talk) 20:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Is this a notable enough example to include in this page? Compared to the works of published authors such as Tolkien, Pratchett, LeGuin, etc., a webcomic seems rather... obscure. There are certainly many webcomic authors who have built worlds, why should this example be included over others? CallMeCaito ( talk) 12:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
What was the oldest work of worldbuilding? How old is worldbuilding? Was it existing even before in olden works like "The Epic of Gilgamesh" or is it fairly a new phenomenon developing only in the 19th to 20th centuries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.105.37.169 ( talk) 14:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Two examples of famous maps in both literature and modern media are Middle-earth and the world of Azeroth.
Two examples of famous fictional detectives are Sherlock Holmes and Tom Barnaby. Two examples of famous fictional pirates are Long John Silver and Captain Jack Sparrow. Two famous alien invasion stories are The War of the Worlds and Independence Day. Two examples of famous beauties are Helen of Troy and Angelina Jolie. Two examples of famous revolutions are The French Revolution and The Pink Revolution. Two examples of famous religion-founders are Moses and Brigham Young. Two examples of famous vampire hunters are Abraham van Helsing and Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Two examples of famous rock operas are Jesus Christ Superstar and Antichrist Superstar. ...
I give up. Not one of these does full justice to the original sentence that I was trying to parody. And I wonder if there is anything in them that strikes someone else but me as somehow inappropriate.-- 91.148.159.4 ( talk) 19:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Some examples of constructed worlds in professionally published works are Middle-earth and Ethshar.
Wow. This one actually beats the previous one.-- 91.148.159.4 ( talk) 20:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Wow. This one actually beats the previous one.
Well, what would you suggest as an alternative second example? I can think of several from literature, such as Brooks' Shannara, Robert Jordan's "Randland", George RR Martin's Westeros, and so forth. Azeroth, though, actually isn't a bad example considering the widespread appeal of World of Warcraft, and the fact that world-building doesn't simply happen within the context of books. WiseBass ( talk) 05:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
We've got a lot of words on the top-down building method, but are still lacking in anything on the bottom-up route. Similar but not identical is when the builder starts with a gimmick, leading to either extrapolative (assume premise X; what follows?) or justificational (suppose X, now how does that make sense?) methods. Is anyone feeling driven to talk about these? Wyvern ( talk) 18:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
I've tried to verify this statement with independent, reliable sources but I have been unable to do so. For example, "constructed world" is used in a number of different disciplines including psychology, sociology and literature, but I could not confirm that it is used in the sense of a well-developed "Worldbuilding" exercise used here. Unless the statement can be properly confirmed, I think it should be removed as a non-notable assertion. Regards, RJH ( talk) 16:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I think "Secondary World" is a more useful term, and one that I frequently hear from authors and fans from forums and blogs discussing these types of stories. "Conworld" is too vague, and "Sub-creation" is a reference to the process of world-building, not an actual secondary world (I've never heard of someone refer to their imagined world as a "sub-creation"). WiseBass ( talk) 05:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I saw no reliable sources using the term "conworld" so I removed it. Also, the wikibook called conworld is fine, but Wikipedia does not link to random wiki projects just because they are operated by the wikimedia. A book somebody created out of nowhere fails WP:EL rules,so I removed it. DreamGuy ( talk) 17:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I've tried repeatedly to find reliable sources for this statement, but have been unsuccessful:
Legitimate writers just call it "world building". The terms "conworld" and "constructed world" appear to be neologisms adopted by a few hobbyists that have yet to attain any notability. "Constructed world" is used for different purposes in psychology, politics, religion, and sociology; anything but the sense in which it is used here. I think the statement should be removed from the article per WP:WEIGHT. Regards, RJH ( talk) 22:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
According to the rules of wikipedia, the title of this article should be "World building" because it gets more hits. Any thoughts on this?-- Hitsuji Kinno ( talk) 15:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
What about the link to "Geofiction" - it redirects you back to this article, though geofiction is a slightly different thing with a focus on the graphical presentation of the imaginary places. I would like to write the article, but English is not my mother tongue. Perhaps there's another user who would start the article? There are several good sources on the net, just google "geofiction". Joschi81 ( talk) 10:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
In § Physics, I've mitigated this bald assertion:
I've been reading sf for almost 60 years. FTL is certainly a common trope, and it may well have been in most sf in the 1950's. But the field has expanded far, far beyond space travel since then (not that it was ever just space travel), and I daresay nobody is, or could possibly be, familiar with enough of it to know for certain. Thnidu ( talk) 04:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Mythopoeia appears to be a potential synonym. It feels this might belong in the See Also section, but, admittedly, I'm not 100% certain and felt it would be better to post this in the talk section rather than edit the article without a word. Zorrent12 ( talk) 21:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
The statement "The creation of literary fictional worlds was first examined by fantasy authors such as George MacDonald, J. R. R. Tolkien, Dorothy L. Sayers, and C. S. Lewis." doesn't seem to be an accurate characterization of Mark P. Wolf's Building Imaginary Worlds. Wolf recounts several pre-20th century examples, back to Homer and the Bible. The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy cites the Odyssey (8th c. BC), True History (160), Comical History of the States and Empires of the Moon (1657), and Gulliver's Travels (1726) as prime examples preceding Edgar Rice Burroughs. This should be written to have a broader historical scope. See also Wikipedia:Recentism. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 06:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
If the source counts as reliable, use it. You are a registered user, so you can improve the text with better sources.
Now for the examples you mention:
By the way, George MacDonald (1824-1905) is more of a 19th-century writer than a 20th century one. He wrote all his major works between 1858 and 1895. He is considered the founder of modern fantasy, though John Ruskin's The King of the Golden River (1841) may count as an earlier British fantasy novel. Ruskin's tale is part fairy tale, and part Christian allegory on the value of charity and mercy. Dimadick ( talk) 09:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I apologize, I added a link to the WBC forums, which I realize now had been only recently removed due to it's small size.
While I understand this particular forum is somewhat inactive, I would like to know what general requirements might qualify a forum as a quality link in this article. Particularly, if WBC were to achieve a certain number of members and activity, I hope it could be added here, as I think it is a valuable resource.
24.20.209.236 04:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
On the same topic, the article now links to Basilicus, which in turn points the user to a Wikia wiki with much fewer than 66 members. I appreciate the advertising, but is it sufficiently notable? The only reason I can think of is that Basilicus might be unique as a worldbuilding wiki, and might interest worldbuilders even though it isn't very big yet. -- Brilliand 16:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Please clarify which The Dark Tower the statement refer to. -- Bensin 16:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Since there's apparently no associated pages for Limited and Limitless Magic, could a small explanation be included somewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.134.193 ( talk) 23:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Constructed world should be merged here. Same topic. And this is the commoner term. Goldfritha ( talk) 23:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Whoever put the proposal in didn't start a talk section on it. I support the change-- though since noone including the proposer have talked about it since august, maybe the point is moot anyway.
Wellspring 19:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Suppoerting merge also. Both articles are completely OR and uncited, but this one is far more extensive, so worldbiulding should be a redirect to here. Yobmod ( talk) 09:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I also support the merge. However, since "constructed world" is the less used term, this should be merged to Worldbuilding. I never heard the term "constructed world" used for worldbuilding outside Wikipedia, and a glance at the Google results shows that it is not commonly used for worldbuilding. Goldfritha ( talk) 23:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I believe that the two articles should merge, using material mainly from the current constructed world page while having the same name as the current Worldbuilding page. Series premiere (remake) ( talk) 05:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Can I point out that this article has absolutely no citation. Neither is there anything in the text to explain the source of the terminology it describes and uses. In short, there is absolutely nothing on this page to demonstrate that the terminology which is the subject of the article, is anything except the personal contrivance of the author or authors - and therefore in any way valid. I'm not discrediting the validity of the information, only pointing out taht it does absolutely nothing to verify itself.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.217.231.252 ( talk • contribs)
There used to be external links to several amateur conworlds. Those links have been removed, and now there are dead internal links to non-existent Wikipedia articles about those amateur conworlds.
I don't think any of these amateur conworlds deserve Wikipedia articles, but why remove the external links? Was it done by accident?
If no one objects, I'll remove the nonexistent article links and add back the external links. -- Jim Henry 22:56, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
already the intro says it, "a constructed world is a fictional world". " world" and " universe" in this context are synonyms, and there is no intrinsic difference. dab (ᛏ) 10:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
On the first sentence, is mentioning Ethshar really appropriate since it is mentioned in the next paragraph? The first paragraph seems to only be about Middle-Earth and J.R.R. Tolkien, so the mention of this world throws everything off, unless that world is to be compared to Middle-Earth.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.42.155.5 ( talk • contribs)
Needs to be included. Jeff503 00:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
"Authors typically revise constructed worlds to complete a single work in a series."—Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.100.204.87 ( talk • contribs)
Shouldn't it be sapient(wise or trying to appear wise) settlements rather than sentient (ability to feel)?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.23.56.68 ( talk • contribs)
There are little or no scholarly works concerning conworlding. It sounds to me like most of the references about Tolkien and Sub Creation come from his essay, "On Fairy-Stories" which may be found online.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.238.73.35 ( talk • contribs)
There is enough good content here that I'd like to propose a total rewrite. I've already subdivided and expanded the article into sections, but a front-to-back rewrite would help alot if it's planned in advance.
My todo list is to make a new structure, convert the existing material to that strucuture, and then add source citations. I agree with —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.238.73.35 ( talk • contribs) that there is little scholarly material available; however, there is some good material on the web that can be cited. Winchell Chung has some credentials on the cosmology side and is extremely well-regarded. Geoff Eddyis an amateur but his site is widely linked and well-received. While I'd support academic links in preference to amateur or commercial links, when such are unavailable we have to use what is available just like any other article as long as it is reliable.
This is alot to do in one sitting and I'd rather have buy-in before I proceed. Any objections? Or suggestions?
Wellspring 14:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Wikipedia's contributors. I am Mighty Erick, a conworlder from Wikia. Just to inform the section division of conworlding in Novelas is not working anymore. You can ask to the administrators there to confirm it. At this moment only ConWorlds Wiki and Imagination Wiki (fantasy conworlds only) are working on worldbuilding, so I will update that info at this page.
Any question you can talk us at:
Serpex, current admin of Novelas: http://fiction.wikia.com/wiki/User:Serprex/Miscellaneous
Yanus, admin of ConWorlds Wiki: http://conworld.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:Yanus
Mighty Erick (me), current admin of Imagination: http://conmyth.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:Mightyerick
I hope this info would be useful. Thanks for your collaboration. Mightyerick ( talk) 01:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that there is a lot of "advertising," and not very much in the way of resourceful links in this section, other than a few. Perhaps we should discuss these links and trim down a bit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishmayl ( talk • contribs) 01:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
The links to Wikia Conworlding Communities were wrongly deleted. Those wikias are not personal nor wikia sites with no content, they are big communities, you can look at them and you will find over 60 persons working right there, Conworld has 1900 articles, Pegasus has 800 articles and Basilicus has over 400 articles, it is one of the bigger conworlding communities and one of the biggest collections of conworlds on the web. Please look out before deleting stuff!!! Those wikis are the center of a loooot of conworlding. Furthermore, I did not add tons of links, I just correct the Novelas one (Novelas is not conworlding anymore, that link was since a lot of time ago) replacing it with its current replacements Conmyth and Conworld. Look at them, they are not about generic role playing, they are about pure conworlding.
But I know it may be wrong that I, being involved on that giant project, added it by myself. If any external person wants to add those three links back, thanks a lot!!! Please look them out!! They are big!!!! Mightyerick ( talk) 01:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I have some issues with the following paragraph (which I removed from the article):
It contains quite possibly the longest sentence I have ever seen in a paragraph. The writing badly needs to be reworked so that it is much more comprehensible and makes for smoother reading.— RJH ( talk) 20:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Is this a notable enough example to include in this page? Compared to the works of published authors such as Tolkien, Pratchett, LeGuin, etc., a webcomic seems rather... obscure. There are certainly many webcomic authors who have built worlds, why should this example be included over others? CallMeCaito ( talk) 12:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
What was the oldest work of worldbuilding? How old is worldbuilding? Was it existing even before in olden works like "The Epic of Gilgamesh" or is it fairly a new phenomenon developing only in the 19th to 20th centuries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.105.37.169 ( talk) 14:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Two examples of famous maps in both literature and modern media are Middle-earth and the world of Azeroth.
Two examples of famous fictional detectives are Sherlock Holmes and Tom Barnaby. Two examples of famous fictional pirates are Long John Silver and Captain Jack Sparrow. Two famous alien invasion stories are The War of the Worlds and Independence Day. Two examples of famous beauties are Helen of Troy and Angelina Jolie. Two examples of famous revolutions are The French Revolution and The Pink Revolution. Two examples of famous religion-founders are Moses and Brigham Young. Two examples of famous vampire hunters are Abraham van Helsing and Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Two examples of famous rock operas are Jesus Christ Superstar and Antichrist Superstar. ...
I give up. Not one of these does full justice to the original sentence that I was trying to parody. And I wonder if there is anything in them that strikes someone else but me as somehow inappropriate.-- 91.148.159.4 ( talk) 19:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Some examples of constructed worlds in professionally published works are Middle-earth and Ethshar.
Wow. This one actually beats the previous one.-- 91.148.159.4 ( talk) 20:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Wow. This one actually beats the previous one.
Well, what would you suggest as an alternative second example? I can think of several from literature, such as Brooks' Shannara, Robert Jordan's "Randland", George RR Martin's Westeros, and so forth. Azeroth, though, actually isn't a bad example considering the widespread appeal of World of Warcraft, and the fact that world-building doesn't simply happen within the context of books. WiseBass ( talk) 05:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
We've got a lot of words on the top-down building method, but are still lacking in anything on the bottom-up route. Similar but not identical is when the builder starts with a gimmick, leading to either extrapolative (assume premise X; what follows?) or justificational (suppose X, now how does that make sense?) methods. Is anyone feeling driven to talk about these? Wyvern ( talk) 18:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
I've tried to verify this statement with independent, reliable sources but I have been unable to do so. For example, "constructed world" is used in a number of different disciplines including psychology, sociology and literature, but I could not confirm that it is used in the sense of a well-developed "Worldbuilding" exercise used here. Unless the statement can be properly confirmed, I think it should be removed as a non-notable assertion. Regards, RJH ( talk) 16:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I think "Secondary World" is a more useful term, and one that I frequently hear from authors and fans from forums and blogs discussing these types of stories. "Conworld" is too vague, and "Sub-creation" is a reference to the process of world-building, not an actual secondary world (I've never heard of someone refer to their imagined world as a "sub-creation"). WiseBass ( talk) 05:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I saw no reliable sources using the term "conworld" so I removed it. Also, the wikibook called conworld is fine, but Wikipedia does not link to random wiki projects just because they are operated by the wikimedia. A book somebody created out of nowhere fails WP:EL rules,so I removed it. DreamGuy ( talk) 17:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I've tried repeatedly to find reliable sources for this statement, but have been unsuccessful:
Legitimate writers just call it "world building". The terms "conworld" and "constructed world" appear to be neologisms adopted by a few hobbyists that have yet to attain any notability. "Constructed world" is used for different purposes in psychology, politics, religion, and sociology; anything but the sense in which it is used here. I think the statement should be removed from the article per WP:WEIGHT. Regards, RJH ( talk) 22:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
According to the rules of wikipedia, the title of this article should be "World building" because it gets more hits. Any thoughts on this?-- Hitsuji Kinno ( talk) 15:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
What about the link to "Geofiction" - it redirects you back to this article, though geofiction is a slightly different thing with a focus on the graphical presentation of the imaginary places. I would like to write the article, but English is not my mother tongue. Perhaps there's another user who would start the article? There are several good sources on the net, just google "geofiction". Joschi81 ( talk) 10:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
In § Physics, I've mitigated this bald assertion:
I've been reading sf for almost 60 years. FTL is certainly a common trope, and it may well have been in most sf in the 1950's. But the field has expanded far, far beyond space travel since then (not that it was ever just space travel), and I daresay nobody is, or could possibly be, familiar with enough of it to know for certain. Thnidu ( talk) 04:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Mythopoeia appears to be a potential synonym. It feels this might belong in the See Also section, but, admittedly, I'm not 100% certain and felt it would be better to post this in the talk section rather than edit the article without a word. Zorrent12 ( talk) 21:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
The statement "The creation of literary fictional worlds was first examined by fantasy authors such as George MacDonald, J. R. R. Tolkien, Dorothy L. Sayers, and C. S. Lewis." doesn't seem to be an accurate characterization of Mark P. Wolf's Building Imaginary Worlds. Wolf recounts several pre-20th century examples, back to Homer and the Bible. The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy cites the Odyssey (8th c. BC), True History (160), Comical History of the States and Empires of the Moon (1657), and Gulliver's Travels (1726) as prime examples preceding Edgar Rice Burroughs. This should be written to have a broader historical scope. See also Wikipedia:Recentism. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 06:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
If the source counts as reliable, use it. You are a registered user, so you can improve the text with better sources.
Now for the examples you mention:
By the way, George MacDonald (1824-1905) is more of a 19th-century writer than a 20th century one. He wrote all his major works between 1858 and 1895. He is considered the founder of modern fantasy, though John Ruskin's The King of the Golden River (1841) may count as an earlier British fantasy novel. Ruskin's tale is part fairy tale, and part Christian allegory on the value of charity and mercy. Dimadick ( talk) 09:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)