Talk:Dieselpunk

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

"Pop surrealist art"?[edit]

The opening sentence of the lede is a highly inaccurate mess. Dieselpunk is not, in any way a subgenre of Surrealism, whatever that might mean. With that as the opening sentence, I worry about the overall content of the article. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 23:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate and respect your presence and input on this page; I know you from your work on the Steampunk article and you're a hard but fair moderator. And you make a very good point. There is some controversy in the dieselpunk community on this. Do you recommend that this statement be removed, or revised? Your assistance on this is really appreciated.

My personal viewpoint is, while the subculture may have spawned from steampunk, and while the steampunk subculture is rooted in the science fantasy literary genre from which it gets its name, dieselpunk is as much inspired by the artistic aesthetics of deco and noir as it is by the pulp fiction of the era. Perhaps more so. And the aesthetic pervades far beyond the subculture.

We've asked Tome Wilson, the owner of Dieselpunks.org, to come in and respond to your statement as well. As he was the one who suggested the opening sentence, he can defend it or suggest changes to it better than I. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 00:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RepublicanJacobite, you've got a good point about the issue of "pop surrealist art." As Jonnybgoode44 pointed out there is some controversy in the community about that. I also agree with Jonny that if you think it would improve the article to remove it then we should.
I would add that I'm new to the Wiki community and that I look forward to your assistance and feedback on this article.Larry442010 (talk) 00:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tome responded in the Dieselpunks.org forums and explained his reasoning for dieselpunk as a form of pop surrealist art as follows:
"I looked around for some scholarly sites that would help explain pop surrealism, but came up short. It makes more sense if you break it down to it's components.
'Pop' is short for 'popular' and means that art created in this style is aimed towards the public and not the Fine Art community. It's not necessarily meant to be dissected. The art is designed to be understood and enjoyed at face value.
'Surrealist' artwork feature an element of surprise, unexpected juxtapositions and non sequitur. Our (dieselpunks') love for mashing disjointed items/figures/styles from the past with the goal of creating something new hits the mark on this one. We also share similar Surrealist roots with the Dada when we use dieselpunk art & fashion to juxtapose classic aesthetics with modern and/or imaginary technology."
Any input or suggestions you might have at this point would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 01:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dieselpunk seems to be more in line with art in my opinion whereas Steampunk is a literary genre. Whether or not it should be referred to as a sub-genre of "pop surrealism" is questionable however, since it obviously transcends being an art form Xx IzzyReal xX (talk) 17:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming the main objection (and confusion) people are going to have is that most people outside of dieselpunk see dieselpunk as a subset and offshoot of steampunk, which did spawn primarily from a literary genre. But dieselpunk really isn't steampunk's child, and didn't spawn entirely from a literary genre. Although it is true that as a subculture, a lot of dieselpunks "arrived" at dieselpunk through steampunk, a lot of diesels are swingpunks and the swing revival of late 1990s and early 2000s, and a lot are retrofuturists in general. And the style of dieselpunk, the aesthetic of mixing the pre-atomic past (and it's unique view of the future) with the contemporary in a "punk" manner, has been pervasive in a lot of media (visual, cinematic, literary, and musical) for just as long if not longer than the subculture has been around, though the current term "dieselpunk" has only recently been applied to it.
I'll agree that, at least in my view, dieselpunk doesn't seem to have much to do with surrealism (at least as it is defined by Wikipedia}, but it does seem to be in line with pop art; perhaps a rewrite of the lede? --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 17:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pop art maybe but surrealism definitely makes no sense. Xx IzzyReal xX (talk) 18:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I went back and review some discussions that Tome and I had. He gave me a Wiki link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lowbrow_%28art_movement%29 that read under "Low Brow or Pop Surrealism, "Lowbrow is also commonly referred to as pop surrealism. Kirsten Anderson, who edited the book Pop Surrealism, considers lowbrow and pop surrealism to be related but distinct movements. However, Matt Dukes Jordan, author of Weirdo Deluxe, views the terms as interchangeable." So IzzyReal has a good point but so does Tome because Wiki indicates that the terms can be used interchangeably. When one considers the artists in the section on Dieselpunk Art one can see that it might be considered in the same school as Low Brow Art. The solution might mean removing the subculture Wiki link and adding a reference to the this part of the Wiki article on Low Brow Art. Larry442010 (talk) 23:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That makes a lot more sense now. Thanks for the link; I've updated the page accordingly. And thanks to RepublicanJacobite for bringing the issue to our attention in the first place. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 02:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bold restore of this article (there are some reliable sources)[edit]

It has been awhile since this article was deleted, over a year in fact. When reviewing the citations for reliability, it is true that a large amount, in fact, most of these citation are not reliable. However, I was able to find at least five citation that were reliable non trivial published sources:

  • Ken Hanke (1999). "Going Batty in Britain". Tim Burton: An Unauthorized Biography of the Filmmaker. Renaissance Books. pp. 75–85. ISBN 1580630464. 1-58063-162-2.
  • Conrad, Mark T. (February 2009). The Philosophy of Neo-Noir. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky. ISBN 0813191815.
  • Rosenfeld, Gavriel David. The World Hitler Never Made. Cambridge University Press. p. 87. ISBN 0521847060.
  • "Squirrel Nut Zippers". Mammoth Records. http://mammoth.go.com/squirrelnutzippers/. Retrieved 2010-05-31. "Hot was an unexpected hit that placed the Zippers at the head of a retro-swing revival that they didn't understand, much less belong to. For one thing, they didn't really play Swing Music, per se. They played 'Hot Music,' a perpetually evolving, hybrid-stew of Southern roots traditions that one critic aptly tagged, '30s punk.'"
  • Kevin M. Williams (October 27, 1997). "Royal Crown Revue, the Penthouse Playboys and the Nicholas Barron Trio at the Cubby Bear". Chicago Sun-Times. Encyclopedia.com. http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-4418727.html. Retrieved 2010-05-31.

Due to this, this article is notable enough to have its own article. Unreliable sources need to be removed however this does not constituent a deletion of the full article.Valoem talk 15:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, you may want to consider User:Ottens/Dieselpunk. It wasn't good enough to withstand deletion at the time but it includes some sources and additional material that may be included in the present article. Good luck! Ottens (talk) 18:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've reinstated the redirect, because there's no such thing as a "bold restore". The article was deleted after a discussion, and the decision was upheld at deletion review. It's not appropriate to repost the exact material that was deemed unsuitable. We do not get to pick and choose which policies we follow. They're policies for a reason. - Eureka Lott 20:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dieselpunk fiction and literature[edit]

After reading through the list of supposed Dieselpunk works I find nothing there that qualifies. The description of Fatherland is accurate, but the citation provided does not mention Dieselpunk in any way. It's alternate history sure, but I don't see it as DP. The same can be said, only moreso for The Keep. It's a horror novel, there's no dieselpunk in it at all. This one isn't even referenced. The citation link to the Brian Moreland novel is dead so I couldn't even check that. Based on that I'm seriously considering deleting that section unless actual references can be found. ~ Brother William (talk) 10:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bold Restore[edit]

Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dieselpunk_%283rd_nomination%29 I am quite puzzled. One delete and two keeps, relisted, one merge and six keeps, and the result was "delete?"

Then I looked at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_June_14#Dieselpunk_.283rd_nomination.29 and saw 14 votes to overturn and 8 votes to endorse and the result was... "AfD closure to delete endorsed"???

Could it be that all the overturn votes were weak? Nope. Plenty of good, policy-based arguments both ways.

Could someone please explain to me what is going on here? Is this another "totally ignore consensus" case like the pending changes fiasco?

On the other hand, whether I think it makes sense or not, the decision was made. Is the "boldly restored" version substantively different from the deleted version? Does it have more citations that address the issues raised in the AfD? If it hasn't substantively changed, I don't see any justification for restoring it. If it has substantively changed, I don't see any justification for undoing the restore without further discussion. Could someone please explain to me in simple language what is going on here? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite puzzled too... Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 00:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me someone simply deleted the Dieselpunk page without bothering to check up on any changes that may have been made to the article. It would obviously quite different from the versions that were previously deleted as at the very least it deserved a proper discussion. Sadly, this isn't the first time it has happened with this article. Ottens (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then it should not have been deleted. Unless someone who can look at deleted pages tells me that the latest deleted version was substantively the same as the previous discussed deleted version, it should be restored and we should discuss this and reach a consensus. Is someone here able to do this or should I go to the administrator's noticeboard and ask for help? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only out-of-process action was the restoration of the article in July. All of the deletion discussions are linked at the top of this page, and you can read the recent administrators' noticeboard discussion that led to the re-establishment of the redirect. Nothing has been deleted. The page was redirected, and all of its previous versions are available through the article history. - Eureka Lott 17:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the only out-of-process action was the restoration of the article in July, then it was clearly proper to undo that action, and it should have happened at once. I am not sure what the proper action is if something is deleted, improperly restored, and then later changed so that the reasons for deletion no longer apply (I am going by the above claim by Ottens; I have not verified that this is the case here). My gut feeling is that the restoration should still be undone and if someone wants to re-create it with the new info, they should go to deletion review with an argument such as "I have built this page in userspace, and I fixed all the reasons you deleted the old version." Then that claim can be properly ebaluated and a decision made. Is my gut feeling right, or am I missing something? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion[edit]

This page should not be speedily deleted because... Firstly the issue is obviously contentious (see ANI) and the claimed AfD is now 18 months old. Secondly the article has already, in the couple of days since this kicked off, changed in volume alone by over 10%. This is not a matter appropriate for a mere undiscussed speedy. --Andy Dingley (talk) 01:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note I have declined the speedy G4, since the DRV result was, while listed as "support" actually a redirect result. For that reason either the page should become a redirect again, or, if the criteria for an article to exist there are met, an article. Rich Farmbrough, 01:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

The speedy deletion of this article and to redirect failed to provide an opportunity to discuss this issue. This article should be restored if for no other reason than to allow for a fair opportunity for discussion. Larry442010 (talk) 19:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Something is wrong with the merge. The above comment showed up on my watchlist, and when I clicked it I went to Talk:Dieselpunk (here). URL = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dieselpunk

When I click the article tab I go to Cyberpunk derivatives ( URL = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dieselpunk#Dieselpunk ).

When I click on the talk page tab I go to Talk:Cyberpunk derivatives ( URL = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cyberpunk_derivatives )

It looks like the article got merged and redirected without the associated talk page comments being merged and the talk page redirected. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that normal and appropriate practice? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. I thought that normal practice was to merge and redirect the talk page, but now that you mention it, I am not quite sure where I heard that. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

What's with the god awful art that's been chosen to represent this? Why are there not multiple images? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.205.154 (talk) 04:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@71.252.205.154: First and foremost simply because there's no other dieselpunk image on wikipedia commons. I don't know why but people apparently very rarely get the idea to also upload their images to Wikipedia instead of just tumblr or so. If you know some images that are quite representational ask their creators if you can upload them to Wikipedia (or if they'd like to do so) and then simply change it yourself or make a suggestion here. --Fixuture (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is Batman An Example of A Dieselpunk Series?[edit]

I was thinking, with its emphasis on a decaying "art deco" like modern city, bizarre grotesque villains and gangsters as well as the abundant use of technology, could the Batman comic book series (as well as Dick Tracy to a lesser extent) be considered a Dieselpunk comic series with The Batman as its first super-hero? I've often described the original Kane Studio version (along with those who looked to it for inspiration) as a "Cartoon Noir" but based on this article, maybe "Dieselpunk" is more appropriate?MARK VENTURE (talk) 20:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dieselpunk. 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) 22:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inglourious Basterds?[edit]

Well it's an alternative history WW2 tale, but where is the retrofuturism? Medico80 (talk) 10:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dieselpunk. 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) 00:22, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dieselpunk. 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) 20:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tomorrowland[edit]

Which (if any) of these genres do folks think best describes the redesigns of Disney's "Tomorrowland" areas? I used to think Steampunk, simply because I had never heard of the others, but now I'm reconsidering. Whatever the consensus is, I believe it deserves mention in the appropriate article -- IMHO, updating those attractions by "backdating" them was one of the most brilliant things the Disney Imagineers have ever done. PurpleChez (talk) 14:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on which Tomorrowland you're talking about. To me, Tomorrowland in Magic Kingdom is definitely Atompunk. I appears to take a lot of influence from the Googie architectural style, which Atompunk takes influence from, and features a lot of colorful neon lighting, popular during the 1940s-60s. The current iteration of Tomorrowland in Disneyland, however, was originally based on the works of 19th century sci-fi writer Jules Vernes. In 2005, however, the color scheme was updated to resemble the original version of Tomorrowland, and, in my opinion, is most closely described as Raygun Gothic, of which Atompunk, Dieselpunk, and decopunk takes inspiration from. Non of the iterations of Tomorrowland have ever been steampunk. Though the Jules Vernes iteration originally had a color scheme of gold, brass, and silver that somewhat invoked steampunk, it lacked key elements, such as a focus on steam power. Steelairship (talk) 18:54, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fallout[edit]

"Fallout" is not dieselpunk, it's atompunk/atomicpunk

I attempted to edit and remove the reference to Fallout from the article, but it's already been reverted. I've tagged the relevant section with a citation required. While yes I have seen people saying Fallout is dieselpunk, I've also seen people calling Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow steampunk. Just because a fan publication says something, doesn't make it a reputable citation. ~ Brother William (talk) 12:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • So many questions to answer...
Yes, it's "atompunk". Does that exclude it being dieselpunk as well? Is one of these exclusive of the other, or a subset?
It's pre-apocalyptic (or at least the earlier backstory is), and that's firmly dieselpunk.
It's post-apocalyptic. Which still doesn't stop it being being dieselpunk, it just shifts it from the shiny Ottensian dieselpunk to the darker Piecraftian.[1]
But the thing is, there's just a lot of sources we regard as robust terming it as dieselpunk. [2] Andy Dingley (talk) 13:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dieselpunk&oldid=1201524111"