Steampunk Wiki


Hi, welcome to Steampunk Wiki! Thanks for your edit to the Category:Articles needing improvement page.

Please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -- Billy Catringer (Talk) 08:11, June 14, 2012

Just to let you know that I have noticed your recent contributions to this wiki. Please do keep up the good wrok. Many thanks, Billy Catringer 10:59, June 23, 2012 (UTC)

The British Empire: Psychic Battalions Against The Morlocks[]

I am trying to read this abortion of a novel right now. It is at best a bad imitation of the old Penny Dreadful stories of the late nineteenth century, except this is too bad to qualify for publication as such. The grammar and punctuation is awful; the plot does not even approach coherence. It is as though some teenager wrote a rough draft of a story, ran it through a spellchecker and then managed to produce an e-book out of it. Unfortunately, spell checking software has no more of a grip on the parts of speech than the author does. I laugh, I cry, and I pull my hair by turns, but only at the mistakes this author has made. -- Billy Catringer (talk) 20:42, January 24, 2013 (UTC)

Mata Hari and Alter Nation[]

Go ahead with both the Mata Hari story and the Alter Nation stories, Syalantillesfel. Thanks, Billy Catringer (talk) 07:07, March 16, 2013 (UTC)

Sucker Punch[]

Aren't you from the Sucker Punch wiki ?

Sucker Punch wiki? Is there such a thing? I hang out on the Girl Genius wiki, but that's about it. -- Billy Catringer (talk) 22:00, October 22, 2013 (UTC)

Lot's of exciting wire fu schtuff! Haven't seen anything like it since Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon.-- Billy Catringer (talk) 22:53, October 22, 2013 (UTC)


Dear Syalantillesfel,

I am going to have surgery done on Monday. It is an outpatient procedure so everything should be just fine, but I am unlikely to feel like doing anything here for a week or two. Please keep an eye on things for me. Just on the off chance that something goes badly wrong and I am unable to comeback at all, this Wiki will then be yours officially. -- Billy Catringer (talk) 00:14, April 19, 2014 (UTC)

Thank You. Syalantillesfel (talk) 01:15, April 19, 2014 (UTC)


Syalantillesfel, please do go ahead and create a vendors page to hold the links you posted to my talk page. -- Billy Catringer (talk) 14:13, July 9, 2014 (UTC)

The links I have posted on the talk page are also posted on the relevant wiki pages.

Syalantillesfel (talk) 00:36, July 10, 2014 (UTC)

Magazine Articles[]


The magazine articles that you have included in the Steampunk literature page should be given their own article, rather than try to shoehorn them into articles where they simply don't belong.

To wit; the magazine articles cited are not works of fiction, ergo, they are Written Works, rather than Novels.

IF the magazine articles were short stories or novellas, they would belong, but these articles are non-fiction reviews and objective articles on the overall topic of steampunk.

A book on Steampunk Fashion is not, "steampunk literature", for example, even though it is about steampunk and it is literature in the general sense (i.e. "a written work"). This likewise applies to the articles in question.

--Sings-With-Spirits (talk) 21:14, September 22, 2014 (UTC)

Naming Conventions[]


I've been redoing the lists of authors in various pages, making some changes for ease of use of the users of this wiki; I'd appreciate your not undoing these basic changes without discussion.

As I have pointed out, George Chetwynd Griffith-Jones published under the name George Griffith and is best known by that name. For this reason, I've piped his name as George Griffith on the list, while leaving the article page's name untouched.

By the same token, H. G. Wells is often written as H.G. Wells (without the space between the H. and the G.), which is how I piped it on the list, not on the article page.

Ditto for Mary W. Shelley.

This misunderstanding has arisen before and I feel that expressing the reasons behind the changes will ensure it not happening again.

--Sings-With-Spirits (talk) 13:10, November 20, 2014 (UTC)

Then the pages should be re-named.
Syalantillesfel (talk) 13:17, November 20, 2014 (UTC)

The page name is not the issue; that is what redirects are for. For example, an article page could be Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain), with redirect pages for Samuel Clemens and Mark Twain. On individual pages where links are required, any of these, or even just fragments, can be piped through any of these titles (i.e. Mark Twain|Twain).

There is no need to rename pages.

--Sings-With-Spirits (talk) 13:30, November 20, 2014 (UTC)


Will the "Literature" page be coming back soon?  SixGun (talk) 01:37, November 24, 2014 (UTC)

Hello. (talk) 06:08, December 5, 2014 (UTC)

Mata Hari[]

The article, as is, is about a fictional character in a fictional setting that is only vaguely related to the real Mata Hari. If this article is intended to be a professional-looking article about the real-world Mata Hari, then you must accept the changes.

The links provided are circular: an article is not supposed to link to another source that has THE EXACT SAME ARTICLE. The list, as you posted it, does this; it also includes semi-pornographic fanservice images (it links to a page that have nothing else except a pic of the anime character with absurdly massive breasts), or pages that are dedicated to the "most bodacious babes of anime"... among which MIGHT BE (because at least one page in external links does not even include the Hata Hari expy) the anime version of the CLONE of the character.

This has no place in an article about the character.

If you want to keep the article intact as you brought it in, do so in the Andromeda wiki, where you have complete control over content.

In THIS wiki, so long as I have a say in the matter, the ONLY link in the article to anything even relating to the RoD OVA would me a simple mention of the clone on that OVA with a link to the RoD page (or the clone's own page, if you want to make it).

Mata Hari is NOT in the OVA, and even if she were, it does not warrant half of the links to be dedicated to her.

As it is, I'm reverting the page to my last version because I'm not done restructuring it to be a professional and objective article on the real-world person and how she has influenced culture in general terms, so that it appeals to ALL steampunk fans, NOT an article that has as its mission justifying things in a single limited-series anime or an obscure 4-issue comic book miniseries.

--Sings-With-Spirits (talk) 01:14, December 18, 2014 (UTC)

  • 1. On the "Alter Nation" page you stated that all resources should be included on this :wikia, therefore I included all the links.
  • 2. The artwork/anime pages could be unnecessary, but they not offensive.
  • 3. There is no need to overuse upper case words to make a point.
  • 4. Focusing on "Read or Die" is not "justifying" anime's existence. It is informing the reader of how the character was used in the anime.
  • 5. Using the longer URL address requires less time to paste than formatting the shorter form.
  • 6. The article had a history on her espionage career.
  • 7. The makeup gallery page had a list of the films.
Syalantillesfel (talk) 22:08, December 18, 2014 (UTC)

1. On the "Alter Nation" page you stated that all resources should be included on this wikia, therefore I included all the links.

I did not mean “cut-and-paste” without paying attention to what it linked to; resources and links should be relevant; exact copies of the same article in multiple other wikias is just filling space. Someone might get away with that in a grade school term paper, but to anyone actually trying to learn something relevant, it finding a “Read-or-Die” character article at the Andromeda Wikia would be very discouraging… to say the least.

2. The artwork/anime pages could be unnecessary, but they not offensive.

Did you see the “Woot” page? ALL it had was a drawing with the RoD character with GIGANTIC breasts; each significantly larger than her head, being squeezed together for no reason. THAT IS OFFENSIVE and COMPLETELY pointless in an article about the HISTORICAL Mata Hari.

3. There is no need to overuse upper case words to make a point.

No boldface, italics or underline functions in my hand-held. I write it in .txt, then paste into Wikia; if I try to write directly to Wikia, it publishes or crashes randomly, forcing me to start again from scratch.

4. Focusing on "Read or Die" is not "justifying" anime's existence. It is informing the reader of how the character was used in the anime.

Why? Why is the anime’s clone in any way relevant to an article about the historical figure? Why should the anime’s clone’s romantic life have any place on the article of the historical person? Why should RoD’s fandon’s opinions on this have so prominent a place in this article that the entire section starts with this point? “There is much controversy in the Read or Die fandom over the question of Nancy’s sexuality.”
Nancy. The OVA clone. The section is devoted to her. So is the previous one. At least the one about sexuality could be edited so that it was relevant to the historical person without making reference to a work of fiction.

5. Using the longer URL address requires less time to paste than formatting the shorter form.

Using the short form shows attention to detail and places fewer resource demands on the system. It also makes it easier to read in code.

6. The article had a history on her espionage career.

Based on information already mentioned in the main article, in Wikipedia’s article and in other sources.

7. The makeup gallery page had a list of the films.

Elsewhere. The list of films was already cut and pasted into the article when you imported it, but it was just a list of link code without much detail on what it was actually linking to. For example, the IMDb links did not even identify the films.
There were also a ton of dead links. 404’s.
When linking to an external site, try to avoid including links to articles linked to directly by previous, more important links. For example; The RoD article on Mata Hatri (at the RoD Wikia) IS an appropriate link, but then presenting links to the RoD Wiki main page, the RoD characters page, the clone’s page AND the category pages thereof is unnecessary: the RoD Wikia Mata Hari page already includes links to the other pages; this makes them unnecessary and redundant.

By the same token, a link to a page like the Alter Nation does not need additional links to pages that are already linked to in the Alter Nation page, like the volumes pages, the covers page and the category page to the covers pages. The only thing these extra links to is clutter the page, crowd out the legitimate links and (especially if unlabeled) frustrate users.

I have nothing against anime. I also have nothing against RoD or any of its characters, but besides warranting a mention in “other appearances” or “Mata Hari in Popular Culture” or something like that, fictionalized versions of real-world characters should NOT be discussed in an article devoted to the real world charater.

It’s like having a primary section devoted to Mark Twain’s relationship with Guinan and Captain Picard (along with fan speculation) in an article of the historical Samuel Clemens… or discussing his proficiency with steam-powered rayguns when discussing his opinion of war.

If you think these things should be included, please, state your reasoning.

Me? A section at the end “mentioning” RoD amongst other things should be enough:

<no code>==Mata Hari in Fiction==</no code>

  • Nancy Makuhari; a character in Read or Die, is a clone of her world’s version of the historical Mata Hari.

--Sings-With-Spirits (talk) 00:17, December 19, 2014 (UTC)

Crimson Skies[]

Please stop deleting the redirect page "Crimson Skies"; it is required for easy and concise writing on the subject; without it, every time that a writer or commenter wants to refer to the Crimson Skies franchise, she'll have to write **Crimson Skies (franchise)|Crimson Skies** instead of just bracketing "Crimson Skies" and automatically going to the franchise page.

That is what redirects are for.

--Sings-With-Spirits (talk) 18:45, March 16, 2015 (UTC)

Re-directs are not required. **Crimson Skies (franchise)|Crimson Skies** is easier to write than he short form links that you prefer. An internal link should lead directly to the page, not a detour.
Syalantillesfel (talk) 18:49, March 16, 2015 (UTC)

Are you seriously saying that the piped link **Crimson Skies (franchise)|Crimson Skies** is easier to write than **Crimson Skies**?

Unless there is a formatting error, the redirect is functionally transparent: by clicking on **Crimson Skies**, you should go directly to **Crimson Skies (franchise)**, which should have "Redirected from Crimson Skies" at the top of the page. There is not supposed to be a "detour"; if you are experiencing a double redirect, I'll look into it, but you have to let me know if that is the issue before erasing the dead-simple redirect for the piped direct.

--Sings-With-Spirits (talk) 20:00, March 16, 2015 (UTC)


You have removed two other redirects intended to make this website easier to navigate and more user friendly BEFORE we have even had a chance to resolve the first issue. I have refrained from remaking the pages until we have had a chance to discuss this issue, so you should also refrain from deleting these pages willy-nilly without any deliberation AFTER an objection to the practice has been presented.

--Sings-With-Spirits (talk) 20:05, March 16, 2015 (UTC)

Dirigible Days[]

The added reviews on Dirigible Days may be for a related film, BUT... *THAT* film is not *this* film. *That* film should have its own page on this wikia, with its own links. *This* page could mention the other film and offer a link to the other film's page.

Without *any* description or explanation, the links presented only serve to confuse the reader of the article.

I am removing the extra links because they are only tangentially related to the topic of the article and have absolutely NO description, serving only to confuse a reader who does not expect the link to go to another film that is not the topic of the article.

--Sings-With-Spirits (talk) 17:41, April 19, 2015 (UTC)

Redundant Links[]

The redundant links in the Steampunk fashion page have been an issue since at least July 13, 2014. Somehow, they slipped through the cracks until the issue was brought to my attention, when the redundant links were removed.

The Historical Emporium page is literally just a gate page that leads to Gentleman's Emporium, Ladies' Emporium, Steampunk Emporium, and Western Emporium, with illustrations that describer the contents of those pages far better than these links alone do.

Try to imagine a user who clicks on the first link, explores the sight, then returns to check the next link... only to go to basically the same place.

These subordinate links are redundant and wholly unneeded. Articles should not be all about external links, and quantity of links is no indicator of quality of article.

I'll be removing those redundant links now. If you have a compelling reason to reinstate them, please discuss it first to prevent miscommunication.

--Sings-With-Spirits (talk) 00:48, August 21, 2015 (UTC)

Mata Hari[]

The page needs work. Specifically, it needs to be shortened. I have already said as much to Sings-With-Spirits. I would appreciate it if the two of you would work together on it. Thanks-- Billy Catringer (talk) 02:09, August 21, 2015 (UTC)