Talk:Steampunk/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Better criteria

May I suggest some sort of proper guideline for the introduction of facts. How do any of you think an idea can be suggested in the article if you insist on a 3rd party nonsense of some sort?

My mention of top hats was removed because Republican has a problem with me - so someone else ponces in and takes an underhanded swipe. Yet, it is a plain fact which I'm sure you all know: the top hat is quickly becoming a steampunk icon and is being marketed as such. Don't you editors look at actual steampunks?

[ADDENDUM: I did not mean to imply the Wikipedia standard of a reference, only referencing your biased attitude about what can and cannot go into your article here. There are indeed photos and references to top hats. Only an idiot would give 100% free writing time to a project such as this.75.21.113.40 (talk) 22:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)]

Wikipedia editors have a way of rejecting everything they dislike simply by citing this "imaginary authority" agreement. So, you tell me, anyone, who is the steampunk authority? Or is Wikipedia no longer a wiki-encyclopedia?75.21.113.40 (talk) 21:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• Greetings 75.21.113.40. Your content was removed because it was an un-sourced addition to the article. Without support from independent and reliable sources, what you called "3rd party nonsense", it is reasonable for editors to remove such content...at least until a source is provided to back it up. The burden is not on other editors to dig up sources to verify edits. It is the burden of the editor who make the additions to provide supporting references. Whether or not an editor feels something is true or believes it to be common knowledge is irrelevant. All new content should have 3rd party support. This is not just the opinion of some editors involved with this article. This is a fundamental Wikipedia policy. I'm sorry if you don't like it. When you joined the discussion here, I quite politely gave you a standard welcome on your talk page, with the five pillars of WP listed. I now see that you have removed that content. It was not meant to be condescending, but to welcome you and provide some background for how things currently work at Wikipedia.
• Wikipedia is not an authority on things. There is no original research allowed on the encyclopedia, and that includes personal observations about how top hats are integrated into the steampunk culture. Perhaps they are, but to include such information, you'll still need reliable sources to back it up. Blogs and commercial websites generally do not qualify as reliable sources. While Steampunk is a young literary genre and subculture, there are plenty of newspaper, magazine, and academic journal articles about it. There are books about it, too. Wikipedia requires that we make a good faith effort to find these sources. For example, the literary anthology Steampunk, edited by Ann & Jeff Vandermeer includes not only seminal steampunk stories, but also critical essays and cultural reviews. The Steampunk Bible by Vandermeer and Chambers is a recent book which discusses the cultural development and history of the subculture. In 1999, Steffen Hantke wrote an article for the journal Extrapolation (Vol 40, No 3) entitled Difference Engines and Other Infernal Devices: History According to Steampunk, another critical discussion of the literary genre to that point. Just this year, The Sunday Times (London) had a featured article by Mark Keenan in its paper (August 7, 2001; pg 14-15) about steampunk called Get into Steampunk; It's modern technology encased in Victorian materials - and the best of all possible worlds discussing the literature and fashion influences of Steampunk. I also just read an academic article about steampunk in westerns in The journal of film and popular television - it included a basic working definition of steampunk. So the assertion that there are no 3rd party publications which are discussing this topic is patently false.
• Please assume good faith here. While I don't always agree with editors at WP, I try not to attack them or assume the worst. Your behavior towards other editors and towards WP policy in general has not been civil to this point, but I will assume for the moment that it's because your new and haven't learned the ropes yet. Many other anonymous venues on the internet easily devolve into attacks and unconstructive bickering. I haven't found that to be the case for the most part here, and I don't want it to start on this page. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 21:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

AstroCog (talk)! There is one thing to which I take extreme offense: your assumption that I am "new here". I have been working in this wretched place, off and on, almost since it first began. Very likely not a single one of you is anywhere near my age. My parents were Victorians!

I do not require the 'standard' self-serving greeting because I know those rules. I do not know what you mean by leveling a charge of incivility at me - but as always, I suggest you look elsewhere also, if you want to find uncivil editors here.

As to the "pillars" - well, how editors love to misapply them, abuse them and hide behind them. Now you are accusing me of adding "unsourced" information to the article! The article which needed so much grammatical correction that I eventually surrendered in exhaustion from correcting it.

So ... I came here asking and suggesting. I was attacked by Republican. You find that amusing, I'll wager. When I defended myself, he took his opportunity and branded me as an attacker and troublemaker. Everyone sits silently and you are at least the 3rd person to chastise me.

You people pine for a time you do not understand or know a thing about - civility and courtesy was a foundation stone of that time. Clearly that is not the case today!75.21.113.40 (talk) 21:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

So you're saying that you've been on Wikipedia since the beginning but can't be bothered to register a user name? Well don't complain if people think you're new here. You should have been around long enough to know how it works. As to your additions, Steampunk is something that lots of people have 'opinions' on but this article tries to limit itself to facts, or at the very least opinions published by "reputable" sources. Saying something like Vintage top hats are now identified by "the movement" is a big step without any sources to back it up. YOU might think a top hat now represents steampunk, to others it may still be representative of wedding outfits, or horse racing. Personally I'd say pith helmets were more representative of steampunk, but again that's just my opinion. ~ Brother William (talk) 16:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

"Please assume good faith." Ever heard of that, Brother? I would think some of you would take a portion of your own medicine and see what I have been remarking since I realised I was in error. I do not touch this article to edit since I am woefully unprepared to do so. Of course, some editors are far much more "in error" than others ever will be. Djathinkimacowboy 12:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

"civility and courtesy was a foundation stone of that time" - well, yes and no. If you were black, or a non-bourgeois woman, or an insufficiently deferential working stiff, or a colonial, or a demmed foreigner of the wrong sort or (worse yet a non-white of any kind) ... need I continue? Nostalgia for the Victorian era is inevitably for a thing seen through rose-tinted spectacles from the point of view of the ruling class, honeyed over with wishful thinking and gilded with credulity. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Then may I suggest perhaps you take up your mighty pen and write some steampunk stories. Djathinkimacowboy 12:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Might need to protect page for a week

This article was just linked to from a popular site (minecraftforum.net), so I'm sure there'll be an increase in traffic and vandalism to this page. This article might need to be protected for a week to prevent possible vandalism. - M0rphzone (talk) 02:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I hereby second the need for this action. Djathinkimacowboy 20:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The place to make this request would be WP:RFPP. However, as there hasn't been any real disruption to the article, I think it's very unlikely that the page would be protected. - SudoGhost 20:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Pages are not normally protected preemptively, and I'm not seeing that there's much so far that would justify protection just now. If it does become an issue, place a request at WP:RFPP, which would normally get more notice than a note here :) Skier Dude (talk) 04:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

True. I regret seconding the motion! Who really cares whence traffic comes, so long as it flows beautifully! Djathinkimacowboy 12:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Photo

LOVE the new photo. Now it looks proper. Djathinkimacowboy 03:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The keyboard was there once before and was removed; I thought the consensus was that the keyboard didn't properly represent the article as a whole and to leave it as the couple in front of the steam engine. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 06:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems it is not consensus one needs here so much as Orangemike's permission. I hated that old photo and really loved the new one. I move for the photo of the keyboard. DISCUSSION anyone? Orange, you want to tell us why that ugly photo sells the article better? Or is that keyboard like the top hat? Djathinkimacowboy 18:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the current photo (steam engine) is nicer. It represents Steampunk well: steam engine + people dressed in modified-Victorian clothes & goggles. The composition of the photo is attractive and it just has more texture and contrast in color and light than the computer photo. I think the computer photo would be a better candidate if it were just a better picture. As it is, it's kind of flat, without much dynamic range. For me, the steam engine pic just "jumps out" and has easily identified motifs. The computer pic takes more work for the viewer to make those associations with the genre, IMO. AstroCog (talk) 18:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

You may rave all you like about that photo; in certain details, I agree with you. However, the other photo is nicer and simpler. A review of the photo as photography is not really necessary for this discussion, though I see what you mean. It seems we might really have something if we somehow had a nice steampunk computer spread that includes people. It's just that I am not pleased with that photo. It looks wrong. Djathinkimacowboy 18:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

If you want a plain review: when I look at that photo I see something that reminds me of some sort of grunge aviation thing. The fellow in goggles does not cut the mustard when he wears an Amelia Earhart bomber jacket and white cowboy boots! The woman looks like a prostitute from an old Western. The engine is a matter of complete indifference, that is, for anyone who might be able to even discern what the heck it is supposed to be. There are the simple reasons I think the photo is wrong. Djathinkimacowboy 18:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The photo in the 'Culture' section, featured the steampunk-inspired arm mechanism is also an attractive picture that could be used as the intro pic. AstroCog (talk) 19:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Your suggestion is appreciated Astro. I'm really in favour of anything closer to steampunk than that photo there now. Frankly, the idea of that fellow might work extremely well since it is one I constantly saw all over the web. Djathinkimacowboy 20:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

By the 'bye, it may only be my usual level of stupidity - but I'd like to know who is the editor who changed the photo? Is it that IP that starts with a "2", the 'twenty-something' IP? I wonder why that editor does not come and explain himself/herself/itself. Djathinkimacowboy 20:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry if anybody thinks I'm trying to "own" the article; it's just that we need to establish consensus before making major changes like that. The Falksen picture is all over the web because he's been distributing it widely, apparently to improve his "street cred" in the genre. I'm amazed that somebody hasn't contributed some photos from steampunk cons (anybody gonna be at TeslaCon in Madison this coming weekend, for example?) to Commons. We need something with human beings in it, and I'm not in love with the railroad image myself, honestly (too dark, for one thing); but something showing a bit of a range of steampunk people and steampunk artifacts would be the ideal. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I know several of the "big-name" steampunk photographers on the West Coast, I'll see if I can get one of them to donate some quality photos to the commons that identifies the genre, if that'll help (and put this to rest, lol). --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 03:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Well all the ideas so far sound grand. It will be fun to see what might come of this. No apology necessary as far as I'm concerned, Orange. Johnny, I wish you well. Lord, how I'd love to go to TeslaCon. A good photo taken from there by a private attendee would be great in the article! Djathinkimacowboy 03:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Madison's kinda the perfect storm of fan conventions: there's Wiscon, with the hardcore reader-fans and the feminist scholars mingling together; OddCon, with mixed readers and media fans; GeekCon, for those who are more fringe-oriented rather than the traditional fan; and TeslaCon, for the steampunks. I love being a Wisconsinite!!!! --Orange Mike | Talk 14:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I had a good friend who moved to Madison, intelligent, interesting and a real geek of the first order (I'm 3rd order at best). A bit of envy goes in your direction! Djathinkimacowboy 18:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Orange, I just caught your meaning above, about owning the article. I did not mean to imply that here! What I was asking is, who originally switched the photo of the Amelia Earhart flying team with the photo of the wooden keyboard. The history does not seem to show that. I personally think you were quite right to revert that change, as much as I prefer the keyboard. Djathinkimacowboy 06:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about who the IP is. I think it's better to scrutinize edits than users, generally - it helps when assuming good faith. For drive-by editors, it often seems a lost cause to try and ask for rationale once they've come and gone. By the way, I'm personally OK with finding a new picture for the top of the page. While I like the steam-engine pic for the reasons described above, I do think a picture with even greater contrast between light and dark would be better. I looked through the Commons here and on Flickr, and didn't find anything especially good. Hopefully, some more pics will emerge soon. I'll keep digging. AstroCog (talk) 13:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

That sounds good to me - especially because I have no keen sense of what might be good to use legally. Pretty good at digging for images, but I only do that for my own files. Djathinkimacowboy 18:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I contacted three professional photographers that regularly chronicle the steampunk subculture. One of them, Lex Machina, who has photographed the League of STEAM and donated photos for the Panic at the Disco music video, said he'd love to contribute. So hopefully in a few weeks there will be a few more photos from which to choose. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 03:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Humorously (to me anyway), Lex says he rather likes the Kyle Cassidy image that's already there! But he's willing to support the cause so I'm helping him set up an account... stay tuned. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 08:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Am expectant and happy. However, would you do me a small kindness and pick this up at "Photo II" section? This thread's getting impossible. ;) Djathinkimacowboy 09:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

"Steampunk" on Etsy, and "Regretsy"

This is for discussion of the sub-paragraph about Etsy in the culture section. To recap:

On Aug 26, 2011, an anonymous poster posted a line that noted an increase in marketing on Etsy aimed at steampunk, but really having little to do with the genre as it is outlined here. This post was removed by Orangemike with the notation, "mindbogglingly trivial in a global context."

A short time later, I reposted it, thinking it could work with a reference. And to reference it I linked to April Winchell's website, "Regretsy", in which she has a special section devoted to just this phenomena. It was later removed again by SudoGhost, noting that my reference was "little more than a blog."

Now, to be true, April's site is in blog format. However it has been so successful that it spawned a book, and April is a comedienne and radio host and a celebrity in her own right, and I was under the impression that blogs that had some sort of claim to fame could count as references.

Andy Dingley undid SudoGhost's undo, and here we are today. If anyone would like to post why these sentences should or should not stay, and/or provide further reference to support them, here's the place and now's the time. ;) --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 00:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Within the broader context of this global cultural phenomenon, which sprawls from fiction to fashion, the fact that one minor website apparently misuses the term, and one obscure humorist has then made some money mocking such misuse, seems to me to constitute obvious undue emphasis, and Jonny's reasoning violative of WP:NOTINHERITED. I'd like to hear Andy's reasoning on this in particular, as he and I have usefully divergent experience and attitudes. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Chasing the "brass pound" has been a popular target for the last year or two, with varying levels of quality. This deserves coverage in this article: it's the scene becoming significant commercially, and to large commercial retailers. One of the aspects of this that has picked up the most comment from both the scene, and also the scene of small-scale crafters and retailers, has been the utter rubbish that's sold through Etsy. We also have a ready-made secondary commentary on this, offered by Regretsy. I see Regretsy as sufficiently RS for this - they're R enough to be given book contracts on the topic of Etsy-sold rubbish. Overall, I see Regretsy's cover of steampunk crap as being a good coverage of the topic of steampunk crap, and that to be a topic worth covering here. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean, Andy; but the Regretsy lady has a COI, since she's making money by mocking Etsy "steampunk" and is no more a reliable source than say, Al Franken (author of the bestselling Rush Limbaugh's A Big Fat Idiot) writing on Rush Limbaugh. I see steampunk findings and tchotchkes in all the chain craft-supply stores nowadays. Has no reliable source written about that, which seems to me to be more notable? --Orange Mike | Talk 23:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth: I spent some time this weekend talking with my steampunk and Etsy friends (a partially overlapping pair of sets); their consensus was that the Regretsy blog is simply not a reliable source (most of them had never heard of it, and the few that had, had never heard of April Winchell, who seems to them to be trying to claw her way to greater fame on the backs of the small crafters who inhabit Etsy [which in turn has its own problems]). --Orange Mike | Talk 16:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

You know, I wish to comment by way of an observation that will surely puzzle you at first. Please consider it, however, because it may help clarify the Etsy issue as I have observed it.

When I was searching for a new hat is the first time I ever encountered this term "steampunk", and wondered why half-highs and high-hats ('toppers' and top hats, respectively) were being labeled by reputable hatters as "steampunk".

My research led me here, among other sites, and I am not regretful of it at all. Any publicity is good. Since I had to have a gander at Etsy, I went searching for a ring to give to my beloved.

All I can say is, if the jewellery at Etsy is any example of what they are contributing to steampunk, I agree that it is an abuse of the term and an inaccuracy in the worst sense. Etsy - jewellery - rings - so what does a silver band carved to mimic wood have to do with steampunk as you are discussing it here? Nothing!

Do you follow my train of thought?75.21.113.40 (talk) 15:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to revisit this topic, as I believe the Regretsy steampunk page is well known and respected in the steampunk community and not just someone's attempt to sell their blog as was alleged, as this music video which is going viral in the steampunk community demonstrates. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 04:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Photo II

The idea has been put to Astro Cog, by me, whether we can use two separate photos showing steampunks in one and the tech side in another photo. Why do we have to have one lousy photo when we can have two suitable ones? Djathinkimacowboy 00:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Johnny's news is good and hopeful. Also, I was hoping Orange would snag some photos, but they probably would not be of the general quality of the Grunge Teen Girls' Aviation Society. Djathinkimacowboy 04:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Two photos might be ok. We just need to be careful not to overload the intro with graphics. One photo that incorporates both ideas might be best, but I don't know if one is out there we can use. One thing to remember is that we only have a limited number of Freely licensed images to use. If we have free images to use that consensus deems better than the one we have now, then that's fine with me. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 04:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Well I threw out that idea to see whether Orange Mike might obtain some photos or the other editors who promised to dig around for something. Everyone seems to think we should jam it all into one bad photo rather than slim it out to two smaller, more powerful photos. Djathinkimacowboy 05:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, well, I see the photo problem's not going to be solved anytime soon...or ever, probably. Pity. Djathinkimacowboy 23:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

These things take time. Besides, the photograph dept. on Wikipedia is backlogged anyway. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 05:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Too much time, apparently. Djathinkimacowboy 12:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I've got petitions to circulate (deadline January 15), which takes priority; sorry. See if there's anything posted from Teslacon on Flickr that's available under a Wikipedia-compatible license. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't realize there was a deadline for this endeavour. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 04:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I for one am happy to see any move toward removing the present photo and replacing it. No one said there was a deadline for this, that I can recall. Djathinkimacowboy 13:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Top hats

http://www.villagehatshop.com/elope-steamworks-coachman-topper.html

...and here is the link to prove the shops are selling top hats for steampunks. If you go there to verify it, be sure to choose one of the two photos of the young steampunks wearing them and note the text.

Although this is a mere costume-quality hat, more and more fine shops are carrying these styles. NOW can I add the top hat to the fashion section? Djathinkimacowboy 02:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Top hats added and the above verifiable URL cited. Do not even think of reverting without discusison! It is a fact supported with an easily verifiable source. I'll report anyone for edit warring if it is removed without discusison. This is nothing personal, and nothing on Wikipedia articles should be personal. Djathinkimacowboy 02:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't know that having one website that sells top hats would really be enough for inclusion. If anything, it might be a primary source anyway. A good reliable source would be an article or book somewhere that states what you propose. I have no real problem with including top hats/high hats, but I see as many fellow steampunks wearing bowlers, pith helmets, boaters and aviator helmets. It just needs a reliable source. A site selling top hats, unfortunately, is not a reliable source. Besides, you didn't wait very long for any discussion yourself before you added it. Don't be too surprised if someone reverts it before seeing your notes. Maybe even after seeing your notes. It would not be edit warring to take out an unreliable source. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 04:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

My insertion of the material was due to the fact that I did not know we needed someone to verify that we're following Wikipedia standards. I have seen such standards, and if you prefer that I reword it, I can edit it to say sellers are entering into the spirit, here's the proof. And I expect you to explain how that site as a source is "unreliable"! Djathinkimacowboy 05:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see why there's an argument here. Top hats are pretty much ubiquitous in the Steampunk community, and I don't see anyone having to justify corsets, bustles or spats. Silly argument, leave the top hats be. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 08:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Me neither, really. I've left it in, although I don't think the external link ought to be there. Is this a rehashing of the discussion under Better criteria above? I just realized that. I didn't have any part of that discussion earlier. Putting top hats in this time is fine because that statement is different from what was trying to be put in previously, I believe. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 09:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Johnny. Frankly, I thought I genuinely didn't give a darn about the issue of top hats - but now I am beginning to feel the old heat under the collar again here. And reminded of the reason I do not like to edit this article.

It is getting to be fossilised and I see the editors making it impossible to add even the smallest thing. Why do you do that? Want to see the article fall by the way side until it's just a wall of graffiti like so many articles here?! I have yet to see an explanation about why the mention of the top hats and the citation are not following Wikipedia standards. I think the editor above will find it DOES follow them perfectly. They just can't stand top hats, apparently! Djathinkimacowboy 09:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

That last sentence is just silly. Plus, it takes time to get back around to visiting WP and formulate an answer to things, so be patient. A lot of people don't live and breathe WP. If someone doesn't answer in a few minutes (or even a few hours), that's not a sign that a discussion has ended. Things take time. Discussions on WP can take days or even weeks sometimes.

I know you've had issues with other editors about this page before, but coming to the discussion antagonistically will not help your cause. I have no problems with you and as you can see, I've not taken your edit out. I have nothing against putting top hats in. Please don't think I'm arguing against you for that. That is not the issue I have with the edit. I just have concerns about the source you provide and why you use an advertisement as a source.

As far as answering your question: Saying "Sellers are entering into the spirit and here is a link to show it." is original research and not able to be used in Wikipedia. That is partly why it is unreliable as a source for this. Secondly, it is a site trying to sell something to you. They have an interest in saying whatever they want to get you to buy. It is true that the link shows that at least one shop is selling top hats for steampunks, yes, but it is not a link to an article that says, "many stores are selling top hats for steampunks" or "top hats are popular among steampunks." That is what we are looking for. Why should we consider what is just an advertisement to be a reliable source? -- JoannaSerah (talk) 09:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Joanna, though I am a bit sorry that you feel you must lecture me about patience, I do appreciate that point. It is taken. As to the rest, I see what you mean and understand you. Luckily, The GREAT and Last Angry Man has come to the rescue. See, I do not "live" Wikipedia either, so I really have little time to do the wonderful thing he just did here. And by the way, why was it that my original mere mention of a top hat was booted out of the article, do you know? The other items listed are neither sourced nor are they in contention, so why would my addendum have been so? Djathinkimacowboy 10:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment "One of the most important features of a Steampunk costume is what's worn on the head. A top hat, leather flight helmet, curved bowler, straw boater, Arctic flap hat, pith helmet, Sherlock Holmes-style deerstalker" Campbell, Jean (2009) Steampunk Style Jewelry: A Maker's Collection of Victorian, Fantasy, and Mechanical Designs Creative Publishing International ISBN 978-1589234758 pp48 should do as a source for this issue. The Last Angry Man (talk) 10:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

That is darned decent of you, Man. With your permission, I shall apply it. Djathinkimacowboy 10:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

There is one more item that ought to be addressed about the subject of my original mere mention of top hats as part of the steampunk clothing.

I was told: "Your content [the words, "top hats" to be exact] was removed because it was an un-sourced addition to the article. Without support from independent and reliable sources, what you called '3rd party nonsense', it is reasonable for editors to remove such content...at least until a source is provided to back it up."

Now, you may see what I mean by the unwelcoming and sometimes impossible demands made here. I see no citations made for the other clothing items mentioned. I even know there is suddenly this new massive body of writing and books about steampunk. Evidently almost everyone here has read it all.

Does that mean one cannot add even one or two words? Now, only after one editor says, OK, you twisted my arm for now... and then another editor saved the day with a quote from a verifiable source, do the top hats get to stay in. It's meshugge and it's not fair play. Djathinkimacowboy 11:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks to The Last Angry Man for the great find. Djathinkimacowboy: I know it can be difficult editing some pages here on WP. I have run into some pages that I don't edit because some seem hyper restrictive. I think part of it is that this page is fairly well-developed and very popular. So lots of people have it on their watchlist. Therefore, it is way too easy to just be able to scrutinize the new additions more than the whole article. We rationalize, "Well, it's not perfect, but since I've found the page, I'm going to start, from now on, making sure future posts follow guidelines." Just the nature of the beast. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 17:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

As far as the previous discussion about top hats, to characterize it as simply about the words top hats is not exactly correct. Two whole sentences were removed that appeared to some editors as talking about vintage hats. Perhaps it was just a semantic issue as well. It looks like Orangemike thought you were putting in a sentence about steampunks collecting old hats (which is what the "Vintage 19th century hats" phrase implied). Since it came about the same time as several other disputed edits, it was reverted. Looking back (I wasn't involved in it then), I probably would have just reworded the first sentence and left it in. Of course, since it was unsourced, it probably would have been deleted anyway. lol -- JoannaSerah (talk) 17:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Joanna, yes, very well put and I see what you're saying... so very true. All of it is clear as day the way you put it and I see that occurs all the time. The problem is, once an editor stumbles a bit as I did, someone comes screaming into the picture, misinterpreting or misunderstanding what was edited.

The example you made is perfect: no one ever wrote anything about steampunks "collecting vintage hats", though I know Wikipedia's Top hat has that very fact in it (hat collectors are hungry for vintage top hats). So naturally the insertion of information seemed to imply that.

In any case, this has taught me not to be overly poetic when I try to edit! Perhaps I am an ox that must be whipped, but I like to think that by the second lash, I've learned. Djathinkimacowboy 19:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

---

Out here in the LA area, steampunk is very popular at SF conventions. Unlike what was actually done in Victorian times, steampunk top hats are often decorated with buttons, badges, feathers, goggles or other appropriate accessories. I don't have any appropriate references for this as yet, so I'm not adding it to the article, but I did want to point it out on the offchance that somebody else might be able to back up such a claim. Alas, it's now too late to get pictures because the main convention (with costumes) just ended, but I'll try to get some and add them to my website next year, if nothing else will serve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDZeff (talk • contribs) 21:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Sad to state up front that I can't provide references at the minute, but Victorians on occasion also pinned things to their top hats, such as campaign ribbons, buttons, etc. Usually a gentleman would not do so, or would pin things on another hat. But it was done then, too. Djathinkimacowboy 06:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

(Blast it, I thought I'd properly signed that comment!) The fact that Victorians did pin things to their hats is interesting, Djathinkimacowboy, but I'm not sure it matters here. The question, as I see it, is if the decorating of hats is wide spread among steampunk costumers and if it's important enough to mention. (If I were sure it was, I'd have added it to the article instead of bringing it up here.) Also, a friend of mine will be going to a steampunk convention soon and I've asked him to get some appropriate pictures. Yes, I know I can always upload a photo of my own decorated topper, but I'd rather have some shots done "in the wild." Once I have the images, does anybody see a reason not to add it?JDZeff (talk) 03:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, JDZeff, that is closer to the correct question of whether to include or not, but, really, it needs to be whether we can find any sources that cite that idea. If not, it is just anecdotal and, I think, moot. Will have to see if I can find anything on that. As far as pictures, we could possibly use more if they are pretty good. Couldn't really use that as a citation, but if it can illustrate something already cited in the article, then it would be appreciated. Especially since Djathinkimacowboy thinks there should be a different lead photo. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 05:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)