Talk:Culture series

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sources[edit]

Might be useful. --Philcha (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dates of the Books[edit]

A lot of the books are undated on this list, although they generally provide enough information to give them dates:

  • Consider Phlebas - the fourth year of the Culture-Idiran War. The appendix gives 1327 AD as the start of the war, so the book takes place in 1331.
  • The Player of Games - the GOU Limiting Factor was commissioned 716 years before the events of this book during the last phase of the Culture-Idiran War. This places the novel in the latter half of the 21st Century. However, this causes a potential timline discrepency since Excession, which happens earlier, makes reference to it.
  • The State of the Art - the novella explicity takes place in AD 1977.
  • Use of Weapons - the novel takes place explicitly 115 years after the events of The State of the Art, so in AD 2092.
  • Excession - as noted, some time in the 18th Century. I don't recall if it was 400 years after the start or end of the war, which is important for dating both this book and Matter.
  • Look to Windward - 803 years after the Twin Novae Battle, which is one of the last space battles of the Idiran War (the last space battle takes place in 1367, giving us a date of c. 2170).
  • Matter - the events of Excession take place twenty years prior to this book, so it is also set some time in the 18th Century.

Any holes or problems that make using those dates problematic?--Werthead (talk) 00:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any, apart from the possible inconsistency you noted re GOU Limiting Factor. Re Excession I'd have ot check but IIRC the conspirators' "fleet" had been mothballed for 400 years, which I'd guess implies some decades after the end of the C-I war. Many thanks, I was considering a timeline! --10:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
From Excession ch V: "... two hundred years after the war ended, the number of fully active warcraft was actually smaller than it had been before the conflict began. ... The fleet had been mothballed 500 yrs before Excession (ch V: "The rarefied, specialist Minds in the warships themselves had been consulted like the rest on their fate those five hundred years ago ...). Although vague, this suggests 700 years after the war, which coincides with the dating relative to Player of Games. --Philcha (talk) 21:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting discussion, I have no first-hand info but I am keen on reading the books in (chrono)logical order, so I have noted discrepancies as to the time of Excession. The main page of the present article lists c. 2067 AD. The discussion here suggests 18th century AD. The main page for the Looking to Windward article suggests 19th to 20th century AD. As far as I can tell all info comes from Excession, The Player of Games (2083 AD ?), and Looking to Windward (2170 AD ?), all referenced to Consider Phlebas. Could additional cross-check come from material in Matter? If the times for The Player of Games and Looking to Windward are correct, then I imagine it is possible to resolve the discrepancies as to the time of Excession. I woud eventually accept the above-noted inconsistency as a residual, on the premise that the masterMind may be faillible! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nrlsouza (talk • contribs) 11:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One Culture novel timeline is given at http://www.i-dig.info/culture/culturefaq.html, where some details are provided as to how the dates are derived. It does not contain a time for the latest novel (Surface Detail) but that book does give a time (six hundred years) from the "Chel Debacle", just before the events of Look to Windward, itself 803 years after the Battle of the Twin Novae in the Idiran war, so Surface Detail takes place not before about 2770AD. I cannot explain the 2970AD given in the present article. Sdoradus (talk) 09:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I keep seeing that reference to the Sleeper Service in Excession causing problems for chronologically dating Matter... however, having just read Excession, it is clearly Grey Area that "disappears" so I'd place Matter as correctly being set at the later date and the reference to Sleeper Service being something else... (I vaguely remember there being more than one reference to it in other books but I'll have to finish rereading them to find it I guess. 2019/07/02. *<:@) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.125.41.18 (talk) 07:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the main timeline conundrum with Excession is its position relative to The Player of Games. The latter is generally accepted to be set around 2083, that is, 716 years after the end of the Idiran War in 1367. Excession has a line that seems to place it before The Player of Games: "Nothing like this had been seen in the galaxy since the worst days of the Idiran war five hundred years earlier..." (chapter 11, V), but it also references events in The Player of Games: "Under the terms of the Temporary Emergencies (Allowed Subterfuges) Post-Debacle Steering Committee report following the Azadian Matter..." (chapter 3, IV). In other words, Excession claims to happen in 1867 (500 years after the war), but also knows about the events (the Azadian Matter) in The Player of Games from 2083. There is a Wired-interview[1] with Iain M. Banks where he acknowledged Excession having a chronology issue like this: "There was a loose end in Excession where the chronology went awry, and it was happily both before and after an earlier novel." He said there that this error was fixed in later editions of the book, but I have yet to find any edition that differs in this from the very first edition. Elanguescence (talk) 06:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Culture (series)" or "Culture series"[edit]

The title of the article was changed without discussion from "Culture series" to "Culture (series)" with the comment "Using parenthetical disambiguation per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions".

However, "series" is NOT a disambiguation. This article is about the series of books. No one refer to "the Culture" meaning the books. That refers to the society, and there is a separate article about "The Culture". If you want to be pedantic, "The Culture" is the disambiguation. The article would be "(Culture) series" if you insist on parenthesising the disambiguation, which would be absurd. So the title should be returned to "Culture series".

And it is completely wrong to redirect [[The Culture}] to this article, so I have reverted that. "The Culture" refers to the society, no the series of books. Barsoomian (talk) 02:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the the article(s) in question (as anyone can see from the logs). I don't understand your problem. "Series" is not a disambiguation? How is that NOT disambiguation? The parenthesis differentiates the Culture series of books from Culture, meaning a society's heritage, language, etc., from Culture the band.
Moreover, you are ignoring the naming convention, which states that to disambiguate, a parenthetical should/can be used. I don't understand your problem with parentheticals. Do you also have a problem with Harry Potter (film series), Heroes (TV series), House (TV series) and Dexter (TV series)? All of them use parentheticals to differentiate the main title, which is often a common word, just like Culture is. No, they aren't pretty, and no one searches for House (TV series), but that's wiki convention. Wiki's system of redirects, searching, and disambiguation pages allows for people to find these articles.
The lynch pin of your argument is that "no one" refers to the Culture meaning the book series, but says who? You have a sample size of one. But really, your own argument belies the fact that it has no basis, as you suggest to change it back to "Culture series", which is really, quite honestly, a distinction without a difference semantically. What the current naming structure offers, though, is the same semantic content while falling in line with wiki conventions and makes it much easier to read and search. erc talk/contribs 03:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're disambiguating the wrong word. The article is about a SERIES of books, in the real world. Specifically, "The Culture" series of books. It's not about "The Culture", a fictional society, per se. Your title does not describe the article. You're not following wiki conventions, you are misapplying them. As for "no one refers to the Culture meaning the book series", okay, maybe you do. That's your sample size of one. It's like referring to Tolkien's books collectively as "Middle Earth". That's something IN the books. It's not the books.
This isn't a TV/film series, as all your examples are. I looked for some examples closer to home. This is exactly analogous to Asimov's Foundation series. Though I hesitate to mention it as you may be inspired to change that too. The reason the article titles you cite have "series" in brackets is because it's not normally written in text. Where "Culture series" certainly is. Proof: Let's ask Google what sample size it finds. From the first page of hits for "iain M banks" "books in the culture", in order:
the prospect of further books in the Culture series somewhat less imposing.
seems to play a role in a number of books in the Culture series.
Banks has written much better books in the Culture sequence.
the first three books in the Culture series
Eight Books In The Culture Series.
some of the later books in the Culture series.
In the culture series
SciFi books in the "Culture" series
So, none of the above left it at "the Culture" when referring to the books. (Note that I did not include "series" in the search terms to skew it.) All added "series", (most common) or "sequence". And notably, Iain M. Banks himself doesn't use "the Culture" to refer to the books. In A few notes on the Culture he uses "the Culture" in an in-universe context and "the Culture stories" when talking about the books. I could go on, there are 442,000 hits; maybe some do follow your usage, but I don't see any. Barsoomian (talk) 04:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about empirical evidence about how real people use the words? Specifically: Special:WhatLinksHere/The_Culture.
Inversions (novel) has this line: "It is implied to be set in his Culture universe." You could make the argument that "The Culture" refers to the civilization, but it seems to be that making The Culture redirect to the series makes far more sense in this sentence.
Not invented here: "The Culture novel Excession by Iain M. Banks features. . . " Once again, seemingly a better fit to redirect to Culture (series).
Hyperspace (science fiction): "In The Culture series by Iain M. Banks (1987 onward). . ." Once again, a better fit for Culture (series).
This is not to say that you won't find "points" in your favor. It's to say that you aren't unambiguously right. I'm going to suggest also that people say different things in prose / speaking as opposed to shorthand, and that in shorthand, there are those that use "The Culture" to refer to the series. And in those circumstances, you get a case where the domain is smaller than the range, so you are forced to choose something based on principle. My principle was to go with the source -- the series of books which spawned the fictional concept. Alternatively, I suggested on the other talk page that making "The Culture" a disambiguation page may neatly resolve this dispute. Now, of course, the naming of the articles remains a topic of discussion, and I believe that my naming structure is superior. I await further thoughts. erc talk/contribs 14:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The use of "(series)" implies that the word is not normally spoken or written, but is necessary to disambiguate from other uses of the preceding word or words. But the word "series" IS normally used as-is, in speech and writing. I demonstrated that above, despite your unsupported "one data point" assertion. You say "there are those that use "The Culture" to refer to the series". Oh really? Who? Cite them. Since you're making this whole thing for their benefit, I'd like to know. Now, thanks to your rewording, instead "In the [[Culture series]]..." we have to write "In the [[Culture (series)|Culture series]] ...". The three links you cited: 1) Is correct as is. 2) probably would be better series, but so what? Your "solution" is to send it to a dab page? Great. Let's just waste everyone's time. 3) could be easily fixed by movng the brackets if you hadn't renamed the article. Thanks again for making tedious work for other editors. Instead of adjusting one link of the three, you prefer to break all of them. None of the natural links made by just bracketing text work properly any more. What is the point of this? To make it consistent with TV seres? It's NOT a TV series. Making The Culture into a dab page is a terrible idea. As I have argued on that article. I cannot see any advantage to your system of naming. Barsoomian (talk) 16:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Culture series. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Culture series. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Place within Science Fiction[edit]

This section, in particular, could use some work. Currently, it's poorly cited (a single citation is used to justify a claim about the entire genre of cyberpunk) and the opinion of one or two scholars is presented as fact. Without a greater variety of sources and more attention placed on attributing scholarly opinion AS opinion, this section doesn't meet Wikipedia guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3068:4FE0:A448:FBE6:169C:80D6 (talk) 06:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Surface Detail Date[edit]

For those catching up - 86.167.5.121 changed the date the book takes place, I reverted it, the IP reverted it, I reverted it again, and User:Yisiririiysiyriyi (newly formed, this is their only contribution - seems to be the same person as the IP) reverted it again. In an attempt to avoid WP:3R, I edited the original version to what I believed was a consensus, reflecting the uncertainty. It's been reverted again, so I thought it time to bring it to the talk page.

Here's the original version before User:Yisiririiysiyriyi stepped in.

"2875 CE (approximate) or 2767 CE (approximate) [2]"

Here's what User:Yisiririiysiyriyi changed it to:

"2967 CE (approximate) [3]"

Here's my consensus change:

"Some time between 2767[4] and 2967 CE (approximate) [5]"

There are a couple things at play here:

  1. There isn't a clear answer to when it takes place.
  2. The book refers to the "Chell debacle" - the series of events that took place shortly before "Look to Windward" - as happening 600 years previously, [6], whereas Banks in Wired says it takes place 800 years later.
  3. Neither of these dates lines up with being 1500 years after the end of the Idiran war.
  4. I would rather defer to the canon description of the time than to one in an interview where he's speaking off the cuff and uses the word "about".

If we can't reach a consensus, I'd like to request a WP:3O. Smith(talk) 21:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


the "Chell debacle" could be taken to refer to the chel war dead being blocked from entering the artificial heaven, not just the war itself. that wasn't resolved at the end of look to windward, there for the "600 year" thing isn't necessarily inconsistent — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yisiririiysiyriyi (talk • contribs) 22:29, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
the characters say "1500", banks' statement would make it 1592. it doesn't seem completely unreasonable to me that someone might round 1592 down to 1500 for the sake of brevity when talking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yisiririiysiyriyi (talk • contribs) 22:39, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need more opinions. Looking at the history of the page, @Zburh and Hypnosifl: have both edited the page recently - any thoughts? Also, in the future, if you want to change a page away from the consensus, please wait until a decision has been made on a talk page before waging war by reverts. Smith(talk) 08:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

do you actually have a response to my reasoning for making it 2967?Yisiririiysiyriyi (talk) 15:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I think I'm running the risk of being too close to the matter to behave perfectly rationally. Your insistence on continued reversion is incredibly annoying, but you should know that when I say I completely disagree, it isn't because of that.
  1. It seems obvious to me that the "Chell Debacle" refers to the incidents actually taking place on Chell, not the attempted subterfuge that resulted. It's fairly clear that the story is over at that point; whether or not they continue to be blocked from heaven, the debacle has occurred. The Culture deals with attempted subterfuge and attacks all the time; Contact screwing up colossally is rare enough to be a debacle.
  2. Even if the debacle continued, the book itself says that it's been 600 years. Read what I wrote: I quoted it. I can provide a link to the Google Books if you still don't believe me, or you can google the quote, as I've copied and pasted it verbatim. I give weight to the canon descriptions over the off-the-cuff author's descriptions in an interview. Your chosen date is dependant on it being exactly 800 years, which means you have no leg to stand on when arguing against an exact date in the case of the 600 year quote or the 1500 years quote.
  3. Your chosen quote is directly contradicted by 2 pieces of evidence from within the book, and yet you choose to value it without taking the uncertainty into account. My suggested edit would encompass all options, yet for whatever reason, you are willfully being obstinate about something that isn't borne out by the sources.
I'm glad that you've decided to join the wikipedia community - I truly am - but you can't just force through your opinion when it contravenes the accepted consensus without first discussing it on the talk page. It isn't my place to prove to you that what I have to say is correct any more than it is your responsibility to do so too. Smith(talk) 17:56, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Banks is contradictory with the the dates of things and whether they take place before or after each other in the Culture history, he makes reference to the player of games in Excession even though the book repeatedly dates itself to hundreds of years before Player. I'm sure the actual reason Banks gives three different dates is just that he got the time line mixed up in his head, but if I'm trying to come up with an in universe way to reconcile them this is my argument, “1500” could be an approximation and “chel debacle” is vague enough not to necessarily mean the cast warYisiririiysiyriyi (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This inherent uncertainty is why I proposed my revision: we don't know which date it took place in, so we should offer a range of possibilities. I would argue upon reflection that the two possibilities we should refer to are the ones based in the text of the novel, and we should ignore the interview since it isn't canon, but in any case we can't just list one date, especially given the possibilities. Smith(talk) 20:27, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I still think the Chell reference is to vague, would you settle for having it 2875 to 2967?Yisiririiysiyriyi (talk) 19:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly think that 2875 is the later date I think we should list - I don't think that an interview that isn't canon should be given precedence over in-universe sources. I'm happy to list it as a part of a range, but there's no way that the Chell debacle lasted that long, given that it's basically wrapped up at the end of the novel (with the e-dust assassin killing the instigators of the attempted orbital destruction, there's not really much more the Chelgrians would do). I also don't think there's any harm in listing a wider range, given that doing so would reflect the uncertainty well. Smith(talk) 14:06, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.wired.com/story/iain-m-banks-the-hydrogen-sonata-review/
  2. ^ The book repeatedly refers to the Idiran war as occurring about 1500 years earlier; the war formally ended in 1375. However, it also states that the events of Look to Windward occurred about 600 years earlier.
  3. ^ The book repeatedly refers to the Idiran war as occurring about 1500 years earlier; the war formally ended in 1375. "Wired.co.uk talks to Iain M Banks about his latest Culture novel, Surface Detail". Wired. 14 October 2010.) "This one takes place about eight hundred years later on in the chronology of the culture" at the time he was speaking the latest book in the culture chronology was set around 2167
  4. ^ The book states that the events of Look to Windward occurred about 600 years earlier ("However, as part of what were in effect war reparations after the Chel debacle, six hundred years ago..."), and repeatedly refers to the Idiran war as occurring about 1500 years earlier; the war formally ended in 1375.
  5. ^ "Wired.co.uk talks to Iain M Banks about his latest Culture novel, Surface Detail". Wired. 14 October 2010.) "This one takes place about eight hundred years later on in the chronology of the culture" at the time he was speaking the latest book in the culture chronology was set around 2167
  6. ^ “Shortly following the Idiran War,” the Bodhisattva said, “the Culture became the latest in a long line of trusted Level Eights to be given Protectorate custody of the Disk. However, as part of what were in effect war reparations after the Chel debacle, six hundred years ago, we ceded overarching control of the Disk to the Nauptre Reliquaria and their junior partners the GFCF.” - roughly 1/3 of the way through the book

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Culture series. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Culture series. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 July 2019[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus. Almost a month old and two relists, and still don't see general agreement below to rename these articles as proposed or to any of the suggested titles and qualifiers. As is usual with a no-consensus outcome, editors can strengthen their arguments and make another attempt in a few weeks to garner consensus for the proposed titles. A merge was proposed and opposed; however, that's a different discussion. There is no prejudice if editors want to try to garner consensus for a different title(s) (such as the other title(s) suggested below). Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover) Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  14:16, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

– A couple of issues here. The series article is disambiguated with "series" which isn't exactly addressed at WP:BOOKDAB but it does say to disambiguate with "type" and "series" is not a type as it can mean "film series" "TV series", season in the UK sense, and more. So if needed to be disambiguated, then either "book series" or "novel series". The fictional culture that appears in the work shouldn't at the primary location. NC:BOOKS again doesn't help here as it does not talk about how to disambiguate fictional topics. WP:NCTV says to use (series element)), so in this situation it would be The Culture (The Culture civilization) which I have no problem with, but expected others would so which is why I proposed "(fictional civilization)". Gonnym (talk) 11:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. — Newslinger talk 07:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC) --Relisted. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  09:23, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The novels are written in British English, so the title should read "civilisation", not "civilization". 144.134.67.38 (talk) 14:22, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
More importantly, both articles are written in BE which justifies the spelling change to "civilisation" (altered). Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  09:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relist note: members of WikiProjects that have banners on this page have been notified of this request. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  09:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to The Culture (novel series), (series) is not a category. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly disambiguate both, I'd note that while the series gets more views, its based on the fictional civilization so maybe per WP:DABCONCEPT it should stay as is. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • A counter-example is Harry Potter vs. Harry Potter (character). Colin M (talk) 02:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Novel Series" is misleading because the scope of the culture media includes novellas and short stories. "Book series" isn't much better, due to the presence of digital media as well as books. Timmccloud (talk) 16:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a good point. I find The Culture (series) to be perfectly natural and comprehensible. And there's no other series called "The Culture" to disambiguate against. Colin M (talk) 18:10, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I feel like these articles are ripe for merger. Both contain the list of individual books, and cover major themes within the series. I feel like renames are a band-age over this more basic issue. -- Netoholic @ 18:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move. (revised slightly - see below) The series is the more likely topic for readers to be seeking information about. Consistent with the example of Harry Potter (which goes to the article on the series rather than the one on the character after which it's named). Though I have to say, The Culture is pretty WP:FANCRUFTy, and probably should be merged into the article on the series. I say that with some reluctance as a fan of the series, and given that the article is thorough and well-written. But I can't say Equestria shouldn't exist but The Culture should just because WP:ILIKEIT. And I doubt even 20% of the content currently in the article could conceivably be backed up by non-primary sources. I was surprised to see the article existed, and even more surprised to see we had articles like Orbital (The Culture), Idiran–Culture War, and Special Circumstances. Looks like they were all created way back in the wild west days of 2002 when tolerance for articles on fictional elements was much higher, and they've skated under the radar since. Colin M (talk) 03:01, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but the "fictional civilization" article requires massive cleanup or merge for non-notability.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose all proposals here and instead Move Back this article to Culture series (i.e. The Culture (series) → Culture series), its original, correct tile which was in line with naming conventions—those used, e.g., for the article Foundation series—as explained on this talk page. The novel series described in The Culture (series) is known properly as the Culture series NOT The Culture (which is the name of the civilisation in the novels) series in the same way that the Foundation (not The Foundation) series is located at Foundation series. The article located at The Culture is in the correct place, is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and should not have a superfluous disambiguator—"(fictional civili[s; the novels are in British English]ation)"—attached to it. Oppose Merging because both articles meet WP:GNG, they are far too large to combine at present, and having multiple in-universe articles is the usual convention—see e.g. Discworld and Discworld (world). 144.134.49.104 (talk) 03:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per ample precedent cited by Colin M, above. I don't think the general readership is interested in the largely in-universe piece containing a lot of fancruft that currently occupies the base ittle; the series article is far more encyclopedic. While not directly applicable, WP:NCFILM#Media franchise gives helpful advice that an article describing and summarizing the items of the franchise... should usually occupy the primary article title (eg. Star Trek, Harry Potter), and having this article at the base title is certainly in the same spirit. No such user (talk) 12:43, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • No such user, Colin M has struck their previous !vote—which you cite—in favour of moving The Culture (series) → Culture series per the reasons I outlined above. In light of this, would you also prefer my alternative proposal? 144.134.67.38 (talk) 13:04, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I'm amenable to Culture series, although I slightly favor the original proposal. I confess that I'm not into the matter enough to express an educated opinion which part of WP:THE applies and whether it's sufficient to make a WP:NATURAL disambiguation. My point is mainly that this article should be made primary, and the other one pruned and probably eventually merged here, once someone gets to it. No such user (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The Culture was previously moved to Culture (fictional civilisation) and then moved back again through a requested move. I don't think the proposed move (The Culture → The Culture (fictional civilization)) should be executed now, after it was previously done and then later reversed. 144.134.67.38 (talk) 14:22, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Meh, it was seven years ago, and certainly consensus can change. The bot has left a notification on that talk page, but I haven't noticed a significant influx of participants from that discussion. I think there are enough policy-based inputs in this discussion to form a new consensus. No such user (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Minor correction: this move was not "previously done and then later reversed" because that earlier move was to Culture (fictional civilisation), with no The. The 2012 RM did mention disambiguation with the article on the series, but it wasn't as prominent a part of the discussion as it is here. Colin M (talk) 21:12, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 1 August 2019[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved (non-admin closure) ~SS49~ {talk} 12:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Culture (series) → Culture series – I proposed this move be made during the course of the preceding requested move, which failed, and received support and no opposition, so I herein propose it formally.

This move will revert the title of the article currently located at "The Culture (series)" back to its original—"Culture series"—under which it was located before it was controversially moved without discussion—also see the similar previously-reversed move—to its current title, which contains a superfluous article ("The") and an unnecessary parenthetical disambiguator.

Thank you for your time. 144.134.2.40 (talk) 08:42, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale from before[edit]

As rationale I quote the text of my proposal from the aforementioned RM:

[...] Move Back this article to Culture series (i.e. The Culture (series) → Culture series), its original, correct tile which was in line with naming conventions—those used, e.g., for the article Foundation series—as explained on this talk page. The novel series described in The Culture (series) is known properly as the Culture series NOT The Culture (which is the name of the civilisation in the novels) series in the same way that the Foundation (not The Foundation) series is located at Foundation series. The article located at The Culture is in the correct place, is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and should not have a superfluous disambiguator [...]
— User:144.134.49.104 03:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Survey and discussion[edit]

  • Support per WP:NATURALNESS and WP:COMMONNAME. The analogy with Foundation series is sound, and proposed title seems to accord better with RS usage. There's some variation, but it seems like in general, RS are much more likely to write something like "the second book in the Culture series", rather than "the second book in the Culture", or "the second book in The Culture", or "the second book in The Culture series", and so on. Colin M (talk) 20:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:NATURAL as the series is generally referred to as the "Culture" series, omitting the "the".ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Colin. No such user (talk) 14:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Recent edits/reversion[edit]

Hi @Timmccloud: Respectfully, your edit summary makes no sense. There is no source that can justify 'the dystopian direction of modern capitalism' or calling anarcho-communism humane, in Wikipedia's voice, any more than stating 'rape is the most enjoyable pastime', since those are both (highly subjective and controversial) opinions, not facts. This isn't controversial. And I have no idea what you mean by asking for sources for the removal/rephrasing of content. Frankly, it's a bit piss-takey.. Ya hemos pasao (talk) 07:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my comments. I see no reason to add "what he perceives" to the second paragraph in question, it is implied by the original wording "he rejects the dystopian direction of present-day capitalism, which both cyberpunk and earlier space operas assume" so your change implies that this is just his perceptions, while the second clause of the sentence states quite clearly that this is not just his opinion or perception. but that of the entire genre he writes within. YOUR statement "There is no source that can justify 'the dystopian direction of modern capitalism' is completely subjective by YOU, and I remind you that we are discussing FICTION where the author can do whatever he wants to the story, despite your opinion. Using rape is a analogy was completely unnecessary, and verbose.
It is also YOUR opinion that anarcho-communisim isn't humane (unless you wish to provide sources), and again we are discussing FICTION in which anything is possible. However, by removing the word "humane" in the first paragraph under discussion, you are only leaving "anarcho-communist:" as a description of their intentions, which is wrong as almost all of contact and special circumstances actions start from a humane perspective, not just anarchy with socialist implications. Removing JUST that word changes the sentence from one explaining that they are trying to do good, albeit in the wrong way, to entirely a criticism of Iain's writings and themes, and the subject of that section is describing themes, not criticisms. NEITHER of the two articles used as reference make that point at all, both articles explain that the actions start from good ("humane") intentions, they just never work out that way. And you removed the ONLY reference to anything that can be considered good intentions in the paragraph. So yes, your minor edits change these two paragraph from explanations to a criticism. So YES, your minor changes were unnecessary, wordy and changed the overall tone of the article for YOUR opinions. Which is why they were reverted. Timmccloud (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also stand by my comments, which you have not refuted. The only effect of my edits was to make it clear that the were Iain's opinions--not facts, and certainly not to introduce my or anyone else's opinions. They don't imply criticism or any stance whatsoever. It simply explains the author's views by making it clear they are his views, not Wikipedia's. The article as it stands does, which is why it violates WP:NPOV (I suggest you read the policy, in particular WP:ASSERT). Without meaning to be rude, I don't intend to waste time discussing this with someone who has neither a clear grasp of logic, or the English language. If you're not going to give way to my, again, entirely reasonable and non-controversial edits, then I'm happy to escalate this. Ya hemos pasao (talk) 06:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to escalate. I have addressed you point by point. As a 15 year veteran of Wikipedia, I think I have slightly a better understanding of NPOV and ASSERT, the difference between a policy and an essay, and what a fact actually is. Your edit of "what he perceives" does nothing to add to facts, but does show your lack of understanding of what cyberpunk is about. Your assertion that "There is no source that can justify..." is an opinion, unless you back it up with facts. Nothing of what you added in your edits improves either the neutral point of view in the article, nor do you understand the basis behind WP:ASSERT, as I quote from the first paragraph: "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." So escalate away and I will be happy to abide by any "higher" arbitration. Timmccloud (talk) 19:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

English[edit]

Beliefs in my culture 41.115.21.221 (talk) 12:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inversions[edit]

Not explicitly a Culture novel, but recounts what appear to be the activities of a Special Circumstances agent and a Culture emigrant on a planet whose development is roughly equivalent to that of medieval Europe. The interwoven stories are told from the viewpoint of several of the locals.

I just finished reading Inversions, and it occurs to me that it is explicitly a Culture novel, since the primary plot involves the aforementioned use of the alien planetary culture by special circumstances agents "as a control group in the Culture's long-term comparison of intervention and non-interference", which is represented respectively by the Doctor (intervention) and the Bodyguard (non-interference). Critic Nick Gevers explains this in detail in his review. Viriditas (talk) 22:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Idolatry or persecution?[edit]

My copy of Consider Phlebas says persecution, not idolatry. 82.36.70.45 (talk) 18:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Culture_series&oldid=1217506729"