Talk:Uchronia

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject iconAlternate History Start‑class (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternate History, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Alternate HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Alternate HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Alternate HistoryAlternate History articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Better examples?

This article is far too vague and pretty much only gives a description to people who already know what it is. Clarifications should be made about what differentiates it from alternate history. In fact it cites the origin of the title translated as "Not as it was but what it might have been", which is literally an alternate version of history. The first Google result for 'uchronia' leads to a site called "Uchronia: The Alternate History List" - so unless you can explain better why it isn't alternate history, it should be merged. 205.250.211.218 (talk) 04:40, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would a better example be the films of Wes Anderson? Not quite present, not quite past? --202.0.15.173 (talk) 07:41, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

  • Oppose - Don't be silly. Uchronia is not a form of alternate history. Driller thriller 13:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - per above Pictureuploader 14:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose- not even similar.--Josquius 19:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly support- Nobody opposing explains why, or supports their reasons. It should be merged with Alternate History due to the article's lack of clear definition, which references alternate history. To say it's "not even similar" is an outright lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.250.211.218 (talk) 07:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly support - The article does not have enough content to support why it should be a merger, and its sources quote it as being alternate history or a segment of it. It should be explained in a section of the Alternate History article, but should not get its own. 24.84.192.215 (talk) 05:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Portmanteau?

Stupid question, but if I replace 'topia/topos' with 'chronia/chronos', then surely it's not a portmanteau of utopia but a word chosen to resemble utopia. I'm sure there's a proper term for it but memory fails me at the moment. Phelyan 12:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well from the article it appears it was originally formed as a portmanteau by the author who coined it (The title of his book translates to 'Uchronia (A Utopia in history). An apocryphal historical outline of the development of European civilisation, not as it was as such, but as it could have been. (I guess before the invention of blurbs the title had a bit more work to do ;) )

But see what you're saying, in the most literal and superficial sense it might appear that it's simply a case of the word using the same etymological pattern to express a similar but different idea, 'no time' (combining the Greek 'Ou'/no with 'Chronos'/time) as opposed to 'no place' (combining the Greek 'Ou'/no with 'Topos'/place), but I think the context and usage of the words shows that it is definitely a portmanteau, since it not only combines the forms of both elements but also the meanings; fiction concerning a society/culture that exists nowhere, which is specific to the meaning of utopia as coined by Thomas Moore, with that of time.Number36 23:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Translation or not?

Shall I put the translation for the french I mention above in the article? The title of the book that originated the term, Uchronie (L'Utopie dans l'histoire). Esquisse historique apocryphe du développement de la civilisation européenne tel qu'il n'a pas été, tel qu'il aurait pu être. I think a good translation into English would be, Uchronia (A Utopia in history). An apocryphal historical outline of the development of European civilisation, not as it was as such, but as it could have been. It adds a little to have it I think, but I'm unsure if it would add enough as it were, to be worth putting it in, what does anyone else think?Number36 00:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe put an asterisk-redirection. It would be also a good idea to put a separate article dedicated to that bookPictureuploader 08:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Middle-earth.jpg

The image Image:Middle-earth.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tolkien not uchronia?

I'm puzzled by the statement that "Tolkien's first three ages of Middle-earth may or may not be located in the same world as the modern Earth". Tolkien stated quite explicitly in the Prologue to LOTR: "Those days, the Third Age of Middle-earth, are now long past, and the shape of all the lands has been changed; but the regions in which the Hobbits then lived were doubtless the same as those in which they still linger: the North-West of the Old World, east of the Sea." To claim that Tolkien's stories are not uchronia contradicts the explicit statement of the author that they are. I think this requires at least a citation.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Uchronia. 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 13:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Alternate history

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
To improve rather than merge. Klbrain (talk) 21:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I missed the previous merge discussion above before being bold. Happy to talk though. It seems we have a poorly defined neologism that for all intents and purposes right now easily fits under Alternate history. A separate editor has tagged it under the impression that it is simply a new label being promoted without much actual sourcing. The only sources are an out-of-date website, the French primary source the word comes from, one credible academic source, and one reference to Philip K. Dick. Is there any reason to think this is notably different enough from alt-hist enough to warrant its own separate page? The lead section provides little evidence. Wolfdog (talk) 19:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be on to something, but can we confirm that the 472 results are not simply using "uchronia" as a synonym for "alt history"? Obviously, I don't expect you to actually know that, but can you at least confirm that for the Ramírez Gallegos and Schmid sources you provide here, before I dive further into them? If such sources (and more) provide such confirmation, I myself would be happy to add the sources and expand the article somewhat. Thanks. Wolfdog (talk) 17:56, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, what do you think of instead merging it to a simple section of its own on Alt History called "Uchronia", if enough sources to merit a split are shown not to be warranted? Wolfdog (talk) 17:58, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd refer you again to my AfD !vote, which I think makes clear that none of the sources I mentioned there was using the word in that way. From a skim-read, the more recent sources linked above certainly seem to do the same:
  • Drif and Guilbert (p. 105), discussing Hollywood, argue that "what most reviewers have simply called Murphy’s alternate history, or alternate reality, is actually a rather uncommon form of utopia", or uchronia (i.e. they're making the claim that alternative history and uchronia are distinct things).
  • Schmid 2020, who describes her work as "situated at the intersection of design, sociology and chronobiology", uses the term to mean an array of alternative or utopian pereptions or experiences of time – nothing to do with fiction per se.
  • Ramírez Gallegos is sort of about alternate history, in that directly translates the Spanish term ucronía which is usually translated as "alternate history", but it also suggests broader meanings of the term by using it to describe the political concept of buen vivir.
What I'd like to see is an effort to expand this article from the many sources available, after which it would be much easier to judge the merits of a merge and would ensure we had some good content to merge if there was consensus to do so. If time wasn't an obstacle I'd work on that expansion myself (I'm sure it would be an interesting project), but at present I'm afraid it's near the bottom of a long to-do list. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All three of the references you provide above very intimately tie this idea to alt-hist. Can you see that, at least? (Even if a subtle or innovative new distinction is being attempted, which I get. [Though I also don't see a unified direction for what this distinction is among these authors.]) Also I think it makes little sense to expand the article and then judge. If it has remained un-expanded for sufficient time then, rather, the procedure is to favor a merge.
Perhaps some other voices can help us move forward. Like you, I don't want to jump into some huge project if I'm also busy elsewhere and, further, I don't want to find out that the project, only after undertaking it, will yield few consistent results, rendering all my investigating pointless. Wolfdog (talk) 16:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the first seven (really, six) Google Scholar results for "Uchronia", which we can perhaps take as a random baseline sampling:
  • "Uchronia" by A Worth: an umbrella category comprising alternate history stories, parallel worlds stories, and tales involving “future uchronias” but then provides two textbook cases of alt-hist: The Man in the High Castle and The Handmaid's Tale. This is a fiction topic.
  • "From modern utopias to contemporary uchronia" by AF de SA: TLDR and translated from Portuguese, where we know alt-hist and uchronia are synonyms. Obviously, this too refers to the fiction topic.
  • "Uchronia and the two histories of Iceland, 1400–1800" by K Hastrup: Can't get access to this. It seems to be an anthropology topic here.
  • "Capitalist Temporalities as Uchronia" by C Sagan: This is a philosophy topic.
  • Uchronia: Designing Time by H Schmid: This, like #1, defines uchronia as a broader umbrella under which alt-hist exists (28), but also confusingly says in contrast to alternative history, uchronia is not related to a historical event or any precise point in time. To be fair, it's an entire book about the fiction topic.
  • "A Uchronia for a Country that Needs a Retrofit of Its Urban and Landscape Planning" by B Romano et al: This is an urban design / civil and environmental engineering topic!
  • "Uchronia" by E Loyer: This (I think translated from French) equates uchronia with alt-hist.
Again, it's not clear a single topic has unified, even just among the fiction-topic sources. This is my attempt to meet you halfway, without doing a ton of in-depth investigating. Wolfdog (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Wolfdog: I don't know whether you sincerely thought there was a consensus for this edit or if it was some sort of odd gambit, but in case of the former let me clarify that my own silence here has been precisely in the hope that, as you've suggested, some other voices can help us move forward, and not at all a reflection of being convinced by your arguments. In the absence of a consensus there are numerous avenues open to you to solicit contributions from other editors; while I understand it can be frustrating when you don't get a reply at a talk page for an extended period, I think you're much more likely to succeed by using one of those routes than by trying to misrepresent the existing situation in your own favour. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There was no objection after two weeks to a middle-ground approached I offered between our two positions, so, yeah, I went ahead with it. Perhaps you can help me with these alternate routes you're talking about. Is there a Wikiproject on Literature or other places you'd recommend soliciting? Perhaps, since you have the wherewithal to revert my merge that I did a solid amount of work on (did you actually look at the section at Alternative history#Uchronia? ...it includes all your sources and more that I carefully worded to add in their takes, very much including information you desired above), you can explain now why you don't think it works well as a short section there. It's a solid two paragraphs, much better than the stub as it currently stands. Thanks. Wolfdog (talk) 18:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The addition at Alternative history#Uchronia looks great (and I haven't reverted it), but that doesn't have any bearing on the question of whether uchronia is a notable topic that merits an article in its own right, which is what we're discussing. If there's a consensus it's notable, most or all of that content could be moved here. If there's a consensus it's not notable, then redirecting this there is the obvious next step. At present, though, there's obviously no consensus either way. Seeking a middle ground is always a good approach, but there isn't really a viable middle ground between having an article and not having an article. As such, it's much better to give it a bit longer and see if a consensus can be reached. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:06, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your level-headed response. I see some of your thinking more clearly now. I'll reach out at those venues you've helpfully provided soon. Thank you! Wolfdog (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to belatedly quibble with the source analysis here, I don't think it's at all correct that Schmid 2020 is an entire book about the fiction topic. Though I've only skimmed it, the book seems a lot more interested in considering ideas about time from philosophical and social-scientific perspectives. This is clear from the chapter summaries on pages 11 and 12 and the fact that only one fictional text (More's Utopia) is mentioned in the introduction. It's also why I quoted above her own description of her disciplinary background, which isn't at all a literary criticism one. This is probably worth clarifying as Schmid may be the only book-length study of the uchronia concept. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:07, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merger. While similar, the article's content appropriately differentiates between Uchronia and Alternate history. At least both here and on the wider internet, alternate history refers to stories akin to Hitler winning WWII or any fiction written by Harry Turtledove. Uchronia is a much broader term which can refer to "alternate worlds" with deep similarities to our own, such as the presence of humans (like Tolkien's fantasies) or coexistence with the "real world" (or world closest to being exactly like our world) as demonstrated in series like L. Frank Baum's Oz series, though can also refer alternate history. It's best to think of the Uchronia-Alternate history relationship as a parallelogram and square type of relationship as in all squares are parallelograms but not all parallelograms are squares; Uchronia is the general term, while alternate history is specifically alternate timelines of our own world. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 02:52, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't speculative fiction the general term? One struggle here has been trying to find sources that provide a more or less unified view of Uchronia. Some agree with you, some simply consider it a synonym with althist, and some go in a whole other third direction. Can you provide any sources for your claim? Thanks. Wolfdog (talk) 15:55, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. I agree there is a conflict between all types of sources when it comes to this but I do seem to see my idea quite commonly. Reference to The Tolkien fantasies are perhaps the best example to rely on. Domestika ([1]) lists Tolkien's middle earth as a Uchronia, ibid with Gareth Wild per Academica.edu [2]. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first source appears to be blog on fiction, though the second one is credible and indeed shows worlds with "deep similarities to our own". If anything though, this shows the term is still in flux, adding perhaps a whole fourth definition to the word. Wolfdog (talk) 13:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Probably best to list Alternate History as a subtopic within Uchronia and use some Main Article hatnotes. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:53, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In a sense what we have here is two topics, each of which is a subtopic of the other – uchronia is one type of alternate history and alternate history is one type of uchronia. As such, though it'd be a bit unusual, it could be appropriate here to have a section on each topic in the other article, with hatnotes linking each. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:00, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I think a more straightforward solution is to replace the material at Uchronia with what I've written at Alternative history#Uchronia. This demonstrates how Uchronia is a multi-definitional topic and a neologism that has a reach nowhere near as extensive as alternative history. I don't think presenting each as a subset within the other makes much sense. Only althist has a pretty fixed and unified definition; again, uchronia clearly doesn't. So again, since the majority are in favor of keeping the Uchronia page, let's just acknowledge its multi-faceted nature. Wolfdog (talk) 22:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I acknowledge. It could work with a bit of both. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 02:45, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll make some changes soon in line with our agreed-on thoughts here. Wolfdog (talk) 19:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Uchronia"