4

I looked through all the topic headers and searched using several different combinations of words. If this topic is already here it successfully eluded me.

Edit: Due to questions about this bing duplicate.

First: the comment that started this is based on the COMPONENTS of the story, INDIVIDUALY existed at the time of writing, thus rendering the COMBINED object SCI-FACT. Regardless of the fact that the ability to combine them did not exist.

Seccond: The comment points to Sci-Fi that has become obsoleted should no longer be considered Sci-Fi. I think I have made the point that rules out a LOT of stories that people may be wanting to find that clearly, historically, were published as Sci-Fi and will NOT BE FOUND as Sci-Fact as the commenter wants them be categorized. Rhetorical Question: Shall we open a Q/A specifically for Obsoleted Sci-Fi story Identification?

Third: I could not determine an answer as to what the policy is from the linked Q/A. Hence I chose to use the Help Section to point to a possible modification "IF the Media Object was considered Sci-Fi at the time of Publish/Release then it is on Topic". That settles this kind of .... questioning once and for all. IF someone can prove it was Published/Released as SCI-FACT then that clearly means it is Off Topic.

https://scifi.stackexchange.com/tags/story-identification/info

Use for help identifying a story and/or its creator(s), including novels, movies, comic books, entire TV series, etc. Use with another tag to specify which type of media, eg. [short-stories]. For identifying a single episode of a known series, whether TV, film, book, or comic, use [episode-identification]. When to use this tag

Use this tag if you are trying to identify a story when you cannot remember its name.

Use this tag if you know or think you know the title of a work, but are trying to identify the name of the author or creator

The story must be science fiction or fantasy, or else it is off-topic. If you are trying to identify an episode of a TV show, or a particular film, book or comic that is a part of a series, use the episode-identification tag instead.

For other types of identification questions, see character-identification, object-identification, actor-identification, music-identification, and scene-identification.

This tag is not appropriate for asking for recommendations. There should be exactly one correct answer—when someone does suggest the correct answer, please accept it, so that everyone else knows that there is no point making any other suggestions.

This is the part that is in question

The story must be science fiction or fantasy, or else it is off-topic.

The question is:

Is obsoleted Science Fiction, as defined when it was published, off topic in this Q/A.

This question Trying to identify 50s/60s story about nuclear weapons delivered to US cities by truck recieved a comment

“Where's the link to Sci-Fi or fantasy? Nuclear weapons & trucks are both Sci-Reality”

Presumably the commenter placed the reality of Nuclear weapons AND the reality of trucks together and came up with the question to the questioner “Where's the link to Sci-Fi or fantasy?”.

I used this extract as an example

I am looking for a story written in the late 1800’s. I seem to remember this “During the year 1866, ships of several nations spot a mysterious sea monster, which some suggest to be a giant narwhal. The United States government assembles an expedition in New York City to find and destroy the monster. A French marine biologist and narrator of the story, who happens to be in New York at the time, receives a last-minute invitation to join the expedition which he accepts.”.

The story is Jules Verne's "Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea". I could just as easily have used War of the Worlds, the Book, the Movie, the Radio Broadcast. We now know Mars does not have any life that we have detected etc.

Shall we indeed consider all these things not suitable for this Q/A because time has passed them by?

IF SO, then shouldn’t we inform those that have questions that IF the story they read and are looking for, that was in fact Science Fiction/Fantasy at the time it was published will no longer be on topic IF the individual components are now reality. I DELIBERATELY worded that assertion as that is what the commenter apparently thought is the determining characteristics for what is on Topic.

Clearly there has NOT been any PUBLISHED or made PUBLICLY AWARE incident where someone placed a Nuclear Weapon in a TRUCK and detonated it in a city.

For those that think the ability to deliver a nuclear weapon to a foreign country, place it on a truck, drive it to its target and detonate it in the 50’s or even the 60’s then you have a different understanding of the Technological Capabilities of the World's Countries than I do of that time. I am confident that IF I new this publication’s name, I would find it classified as Science Fiction at the time it was published.

I would HOPE we can avoid attempting to NOT ANSWER the core issue (I read an 1800's sci-fi book that had ....) Said more simply, it is was published as SCI-FI and someone is looking for it here we should not treat it as off topic. I would think that is why this Q/A is here to assist people to find the titles to SCI-FI media they remember and want to experience again.

||||||
  • 3
    IMO, this question needs more CAPS. – Gallifreyan Apr 16 '17 at 12:18
  • @Valorum Ok, I read that link and the 2nd answer is somewhat like this question. Yet it is hard for me to see or at least understand how that Q/A pertains to the issue the commenter is basing their assertion on. I.E. If the individual components existed at the time of the writing that means it is NOT SCI-FI. It implies that the ability to combine them is NOT relevant. My generalized question / assertion is Why not end this one and for all and make it clear. IF the Media Object was SCI-FI at the time it was published then it is ON TOPIC. – Enigma Maitreya Apr 16 '17 at 15:27
  • Hey @Gallifreyan your comment is a duplicate of Valorum :) And not I think the number of words capatilzied to draw attention to them was ... just the right amount. :) – Enigma Maitreya Apr 16 '17 at 15:30
  • 1
    Your choice :) It's just that we usually use bold or italic for emphasis, but enclosing words in **double stars** or *single stars*, respectively. – Gallifreyan Apr 16 '17 at 15:33
  • @Gallifreyan I understand your point and am flawed by obsolescence. As in that what your saying is pretty hard to do on a type writer. In addition, in all honesty, I tend to resist the co-opting of established meanings for the simple purpose of being allowed to use those meanings in a new way. While that is questionable, it is ok. To then turn around and demean or insult people because they use the previous established meaning .... well that makes it a different issue then :) I hope you did not see my previous comment to you as negative I was trying to poke fun/levity. – Enigma Maitreya Apr 16 '17 at 15:48
  • @Gallifreyan the "just the right amount" was a reference to a person asking an Artist if they had to many strokes in their painting. A person asked if a Classic book had to many words in it ... etc. So it was just poking fun. – Enigma Maitreya Apr 16 '17 at 15:51
  • @EnigmaMaitreya - His comment isn't a duplicate. His is automatically generated by the system to show what post he's voting to close this as a duplicate. Since my vote is binding, I don't vote on these until it hits four. – Valorum Apr 16 '17 at 17:00
  • @Valorum Ok thanks I learned something new about how all this works :) – Enigma Maitreya Apr 16 '17 at 17:27
  • 2
    The rule that "the story must be science fiction or fantasy, or else it is off-topic." is void for vagueness, and in fact quite meaningless, seeing as we do not have a definition of what is science fiction, or what is fantasy, or what is science-fiction-or-fantasy. The idea that science fiction can be "obsoleted" by scientific or technological developments seems to be based on some unstated but probably muddled, naive, and erroneous conception of what science fiction is. – user14111 Apr 17 '17 at 6:48

Browse other questions tagged .