Slashdot Mirror


The Encyclopedia of Sci-fi Goes Live Online

arcite writes "After twenty years of hard work, the Encyclopedia of Science Fiction website has recently gone live. It's an online database containing thousands of entries for all things Sci-fi, and a great place to read all about your favourite authors, characters, themes, and everything else."

82 comments

  1. Wikipedia used to be good at sci-fi. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Then deletionists showed up. No amount of "personal appeals" will ever get me to like Wikipedia again. Hopefully as more people get fed up of Deletionists they will set up their own encyclopedias.

    1. Re:Wikipedia used to be good at sci-fi. by wisnoskij · · Score: 2, Informative

      I cannot say mush about scifi on Wikipedia but in general this is a huge problem for the entire site. Anything that does not appeal to or mean something to their small uniform group is delegated to a either far too little space on Wikipedia or none at all.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    2. Re:Wikipedia used to be good at sci-fi. by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      /. in need of comment editing.
      * "much"

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    3. Re:Wikipedia used to be good at sci-fi. by Trepidity · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Wikipedia's actually pretty good at sci-fi currently imo. It doesn't go into the level of fan detail on specific works as something like WookiePedia does, but it has pretty good coverage of the authors, novels, and general literary landscape. If anything, its sci-fi coverage is considerably better than its coverage of most other areas of fiction.

    4. Re:Wikipedia used to be good at sci-fi. by crossmr · · Score: 2

      Most remotely popular sci fi things (books, movies, tv shows, games) all have their own independent wikia anyway.

    5. Re:Wikipedia used to be good at sci-fi. by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      What's the worst is that you can add something important, like the CrystaLens eye implant that was FDA-approved, and they delete it. Happened to me after my eye surgey in 2006. I got the new lens, which unlike older IOLs allows one to focus.

      I gave up after three times. Someone from wikipedial finally got it in there about 2008 or so after I bitched about it on slashdot.

      Edit again? No fucking way. I'll look stuff up out of curiosity (it's great for track titles on sampled LPs the CDDB won't find), but edit? Nope, not me.

  2. Who cares about deletionists? by vlm · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Who cares about deletionists? They're the last thing we need.

    http://sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/notes_on_content

    Seems to just be a long list bragging about all the stuff they deleted. Golf clap for them. I'm so glad I won't be able to find stuff I'm trying to find, just what I always wanted in a website.

    Bye bye guys don't forget to rm -Rf / on the way out.

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    1. Re:Who cares about deletionists? by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

      I don't get it, I can find more about sci-fi at my LOCAL library, definately the sci fi channel website... oh well, I wonder if this is what people are talking about when they post shit on / looking for hits to their website. This reminds me of a wordpress site maybe.

    2. Re:Who cares about deletionists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's also bogs down the three browsers I use with scroll lag which I've never bothered to figure out, I just avoid it.

  3. Re:20 years? by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

    Yawn, you do better???

  4. memory-alpha.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    contains all the sci-fi information I need.

  5. wikipaedia? by OlRickDawson · · Score: 1

    I thought that all of that was tracked in wikipaedia

    --
    Ol' Rick Dawson had a farm EIEIO
    1. Re:wikipaedia? by bcrowell · · Score: 2

      Take a look at WP's article on Robert Heinlein and then at SFE's. Both have useful material. The WP article has photos, which the SFE article lacks. The WP article has many of the problems common to WP articles, including a dopey list at the end ("Inventions presaged" include the hand dryer!). The SFE article is more useful if you're looking for critical commentary, since POV (point of view) is verboten on Wikipedia. A big difference, of course, is that WP is free information, whereas SFE is only free-as-in-speech.

    2. Re:wikipaedia? by jgrahn · · Score: 3, Informative

      Take a look at WP's article on Robert Heinlein and then at SFE's. Both have useful material. [...] The SFE article is more useful if you're looking for critical commentary, since POV (point of view) is verboten on Wikipedia.

      And this is a major difference. The SF Encyclopedia sucks in many, many ways but at least if you look up (say) an author you get a mainstream overview of his writing (I suppose "critical commentary" is the right term). With the WP you get hard facts but still can't tell if this might be an author worth reading.

      The SFE article on Theodore Sturgeon was excellent.

    3. Re:wikipaedia? by V+for+Vendetta · · Score: 1

      And this is a major difference. The SF Encyclopedia sucks in many, many ways but at least if you look up (say) an author you get a mainstream overview of his writing (I suppose "critical commentary" is the right term). With the WP you get hard facts but still can't tell if this might be an author worth reading.

      Hmm, when comparing David Weber's WP entry with the SF enc. entry, I can't share your point of view.

  6. Wikipedia by Relic+of+the+Future · · Score: 3, Funny

    When they started, there was no Wikipedia. But I guess it shows some sort of grim determination that they bothered to finish?

    --
    Those who fail to understand communication protocols, are doomed to repeat them over port 80.
  7. Twent years? MODESTY BLAISE, NICK CARTER?! by G3ckoG33k · · Score: 4, Informative

    Clicking on their link "characters" gives you this embarrassing crap:

    A - Character

    B - Character

            BATMAN

    C - Character

            CAPTAIN FUTURE
            CAPTAIN HAZZARD
            CAPTAIN JUSTICE
            CAPTAIN MARVEL
            CAPTAIN MIDNIGHT
            CAPTAIN VIDEO
            CAPTAIN ZERO
            CARTER, NICK

    D - Character

            DALEKS
            DOC SAVAGE

    E - Character

    F - Character

            FANTÔMAS
            FLASH GORDON
            FORD, ASHTON
            FU MANCHU

    G - Character

            GAMERA
            GARTH

    H - Character

            HOLMES, SHERLOCK

    I - Character

    J - Character

            JAMES BOND
            JEFF HAWKE
            JUDGE DREDD

    K - Character

            KEMLO

    L - Character

    M - Character

            MODESTY BLAISE

    N - Character

            NICK CARTER

    O - Character

    P - Character

            PERRY RHODAN

    Q - Character

    R - Character

            RHODAN, PERRY

    S - Character

            SAINT, THE
            SEXTON BLAKE LIBRARY
            SHADOW, THE
            SHE
            SUPERMAN [character]

    T - Character

            TARZAN
            TOM SWIFT
            TRIFFID
            TROUT, KILGORE

    U - Character

    V - Character

    W - Character

    X - Character

    Y - Character

    Z - Character

    1. Re:Twent years? MODESTY BLAISE, NICK CARTER?! by Briareos · · Score: 1

      P - Character

              PERRY RHODAN

      Holy crap - that entry clearly hasn't been updated since 1991, seeing as several of the people mentioned died in the last 20 years and more than 1000 volumes, errr, "booklets" have been published since...

      Did they just stumble upon their grandpa's notes on science fiction in the attic and decided to dump them on the interwebs?

      np: Scott Matthew - Felicity (Gallantry's Favorite Son)

      --

      "I'm not anti-anything, I'm anti-everything, it fits better." - Sole

  8. What a lame website by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So there have been no sci-fi charactes whos names start with A, or L, or U, or W?

    In all of sci-fi?

    This is basically a Dr Who fan site. Dr Who is the shittiest, lowest common denominator, excuse for "sci fi" that there ever was.

    1. Re:What a lame website by Yvan256 · · Score: 2

      I still think wrestling is the shittiest syfy.

    2. Re:What a lame website by OffaMyLawn · · Score: 1

      I always thought of wrestling more as a soap opera. With more tights.

    3. Re:What a lame website by Nothing2Chere · · Score: 1

      I've tought my children to pronounce SyFy as "sif-fee" because it's not Sci-Fi anymore.

  9. Re:20 years? by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

    On second thought, you probably can...

    I can put something like this together in a month from code w better nav aond colors prolly, assuming I can copy paste the content, which is fair since I'd be the developer, NOT the researcher on the project.

    Still a very strong start, not a 20 year one though.

  10. Effect by TallDarkMan · · Score: 1

    Slashdotted

    --
    Will draft for food...
  11. And in other new... by jkyrlach · · Score: 5, Funny

    The Encyclopedia of Sci-fi Goes Offline

  12. Holes and Holes by eldavojohn · · Score: 1

    This doesn't really look like 20 years of effort. Lot's of holes.

    I only found two.

    But on a more serious note, I looked up Stanislaw Lem expecting to find a footnote and was instead fairly impressed with the depth, cross references and quality. Perhaps this caters to old school sci-fi? Mind filling us in on what's missing?

    There's even a short but accurate entry for Kilgore Trout.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Holes and Holes by icebraining · · Score: 2

      They have a page for Lem, but not for each of his novels. For example,The Invincible is just a name on that site, but it has its own page on Wikipedia.

    2. Re:Holes and Holes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Eh, I think the Kilgore Trout entry is rather exemplary (in a bad way). Here is their entire entry:

      An sf-writer character in Kurt VONNEGUT Jr's God Bless You, Mr Rosewater (1965) and Breakfast of Champions (1973), first used as a pseudonym by L W CURREY and David G HARTWELL for a short bibliography, SF-I: A Selective Bibliography (1971 chap), and later (there was a row about this) by Philip José FARMER on the novel Venus on the Half-Shell (1975). [PN]

      No mention of Slaughterhouse-Five, which is easily his most famous appearance, or the other half dozen or so Vonnegut books he was featured in. Worse still, their phrasing strongly implies that God Bless You and Breakfast of Champions were his only two appearances which is flat out inaccurate. Compare to Wikipedia, which has over a page on Kilgore Trout and lists every appearance and gives more "biographical" information. I know it's not really fair to compare to Wikipedia, but the fact is, if you're going to make an Encyclopedia dedicated to a narrow focus, it requires more content in that area than any general encyclopedia, or it's pretty worthless.

  13. LEARN TO SPELL IT !! IT'S SyFy !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look it up !! And it's got space rastlin', too !!

  14. And thus were millions of man-hours spent by ackthpt · · Score: 1

    This won't solve anything.

    The Kirk or Picard, who was best, argument will go on forever.

    and it was Kirk!

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:And thus were millions of man-hours spent by Anomalyst · · Score: 2

      and ... it ... was ... Kirk ... !
      FTFY

      --
      There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
    2. Re:And thus were millions of man-hours spent by kimvette · · Score: 2

      and.. . it WAS. . . Kirk!

      FTFY - there isn't. . . a. . . pausebetween. . . every. . . single. . . word. . . andsometimes. . . any pause, IS. . . omitted.. . and. . somewords. . . ARE. . emphasized.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    3. Re:And thus were millions of man-hours spent by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!!!!!!!!!!!
      .
      .
      .
      .
      (goddamned lameness filter. Hard as hell to tell some jokes around here. I wonder how much offtopic shit I'll have to post for the lameness filter to let me post that stupid Wrath of Khan joke?)

  15. Re:LEARN TO SPELL IT !! IT'S SyFy !! by arcite · · Score: 1

    It's just Science Fiction, the real stuff, none of that Fantasy werewolves/vampire crud! ;)

  16. No real info on David Brin... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They don't even have a list of his works. Startide Rising is one of the best SF novels I've ever read. A search for "Mote" reveals another perilous gap. I'd say this site is barely even a good overview much less a comprehensive record. Maybe they've been preferential to authors publishing under they own Gateway label?

    I also wasn't able to find anything about an obscure, classic SF novel I read once that may have had one or more sequels; my memory is sketchy but Earth was sending out warships, they had to reverse thrust halfway to their destination (couldn't travel faster than light) there was a mutiny and I remember vaguely something about iceships and neanderthals?
    g=

  17. OK can we agree this site sucks? by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

    I tried a few searches that failed, and it looks like others have too.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    1. Re:OK can we agree this site sucks? by sirdude · · Score: 1

      I don't really have a comment on the content of the site. But it sure does look pretty fugly atm. The line height being used is especially jarring.

    2. Re:OK can we agree this site sucks? by JustinOpinion · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I have mixed feelings about this site.

      After quickly looking around, I was able to identify plenty of books/shows/movies that are not mentioned at all. And those that are mentioned are given only quite brief articles. When you compare the coverage to what Wikipedia has, this new site looks rather small. When you also think about how much material there is in Memory Alpha, Wookiepedia, and all the other franchise-specific wikis, then this new site seems positively embarrassingly small.

      However after reading a few articles, I think it does bring something new. In particular, the essays are not the factual NPOV articles that Wikipedia strives for. They are in fact highly opinionated about the quality and historic impact of various parts of SF. While I didn't agree with all the entries, they seemed mostly well-researched, and had lots of historical information and pointed out other works were given themes had also been explored.

      My point is that this site gives us a different perspective. The essays and opinion pieces should be interesting to most anyone interested in SF. However I think calling it "The Encyclopedia of Sci-Fi" is a mistake. "Encyclopedia", in the modern Internet age, implies detailed coverage, in both breadth and depth; this site provides neither, from what I can see. Rather than advertising it as an authoritative factual cataloging of every SF work ever produced (which, again, is what "encyclopedia" means to most people nowadays, for better or worse), they should be emphasizing that they are providing an assortment of opinion pieces about the history of SF, written by selected experts.

    3. Re:OK can we agree this site sucks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called "The Encyclopedia of Sci-Fi" because it's an expanded version of a good old fashioned dead tree book, called "The Encyclopedia of Sci-Fi". I've got a copy of the second edition, and it's rather a doorstop.

    4. Re:OK can we agree this site sucks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is correct.
      The name "SF Almanac" is more honest.

  18. Random CAPITALIZATION by egomaniac · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I must SAY that the complete CAPITALIZATION of every LINK in each ARTICLE makes it extremely DIFFICULT for me to READ. Perhaps there are PEOPLE that don't mind READING such oddly CAPITALIZED ARTICLES, but I am not one of THEM.

    --
    ZFS: because love is never having to say fsck
    1. Re:Random CAPITALIZATION by PlatyPaul · · Score: 2

      Maybe... it was WRITTEN... by William... SHATNER!

      --
      Misery loves company. Online misery loves unsuspecting random strangers.
    2. Re:Random CAPITALIZATION by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      Reads to me more like Tourettes Guy.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    3. Re:Random CAPITALIZATION by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Or the GUY who puts the POINTLESS sayings at the BOTTOM of SLASHDOT.

  19. A couple link I use for free sci-fi kindle e-books by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  20. Congratulations, I guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    On CREATING a site that is so UNREADABLE I can hardly tell if the INFORMATION is worth putting up with.

    Seriously, changing the color of links is enough. I don't need every other word in caps in an article.

    If I'm reading the article correctly this is an online version of a book last published in 1993. I'm assuming there are some additions, but basically it's the book... And they're working hard on uploading the rest of the content? So it's out there, and digital, but they're just having a hard time getting it into a database? You're telling me the Encyclopedia of Sci-Fi is having problems that I would expect the Encyclopedia of Quilting, Knitting and Crocheting would have?

    I mean, under characters they have 36 entire entries already! Wow! And no section for books? What? Wait, they have an article on the Buggles! OK, they've totally redeemed themselves. This isn't a terrible website, it's a terrible website which has an article on the Buggles.

    1. Re:Congratulations, I guess... by calinduca · · Score: 1

      On CREATING a site that is so UNREADABLE I can hardly tell if the INFORMATION is worth putting up with.

      Seriously, changing the color of links is enough. I don't need every other word in caps in an article.

      Van VOGT, A E Tagged: Author

      (1912-2000) Canadian writer who moved to the USA at the end of 1944 after establishing his name as one of the creators of John W CAMPBELL Jr's GOLDEN AGE OF SF with a flood of material in ASTOUNDING SCIENCE-FICTION, starting with "Black Destroyer" (July 1939 ASTOUNDING), though he had been active for several years in various other genres.

      Wow... Long phrase without much useful information there. Had to read it for 2 mins to digest it. Sure sounds like an "author"'s words, than an encyclopedia.

  21. Their server is 20 years old too by Dynamoo · · Score: 2
    Their server is 20 years old too.. Slashdotted.

    It appears to be run by a proper publishers, Hachette despite hiding behind a Domains By Proxy Registration.

    --
    Never email donotemail@WeAreSpammers.com
    1. Re:Their server is 20 years old too by Briareos · · Score: 1

      So you're saying the whole thing is a hachette job?

      Figures...

      --

      "I'm not anti-anything, I'm anti-everything, it fits better." - Sole

    2. Re:Their server is 20 years old too by coyote_oww · · Score: 1

      Curiously, they don't have any "U.S.", "U.K.", "England", "America", or such in their Culture->International listings. Do they not differentiate (all anglo-phone culture is one)? or have they just not gotten around to it?

      Overall, I found it very disappointing. The CAPS choices for links renders the thing unreadable, the content is so far from complete as to be useless. The opinionated nature of it is ok, by me, but the general organization is too quirky to be something I'd recommend. Stick to the topical wikis, Wikipedia, or TV Tropes (which recently underwent a mild bout of deletionism, needed IMHO).

      I won't be bookmarking the site. :-(

  22. ISFDB by bcrowell · · Score: 4, Informative

    There's also ISFDB. It's just a database of fiction, but it seems to be very complete.

    1. Re:ISFDB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Depends on what you are looking for I guess. I have the first and second printed editions of The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and the second edition is excellent even today even if it is old. Not because it is complete but mainly for the well written articles, not least the articles on various themes like computers or clichés just to mention two. This is not just a list of authors and books. I look forward to reading the online version.

      Posting anonymously because I'm at work and don't my password here.

    2. Re:ISFDB by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Posting anonymously because I'm at work and don't my password here.

      Just do what I do and use ******** as your password for every site,

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  23. You mean wikipedia? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I thought Wikipedia was already live?

    1. Re:You mean wikipedia? by Nimey · · Score: 1

      It's certainly full of SF stuff, isn't it?

      On another site, one poster observed that a *really effective* fundraising campaign for Wikipedia would be one wherein they threaten to perma-delete 100 random pointless SF nerd/weeabo articles each day unless their fundraising needs were met.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
  24. Re:20 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes

  25. Errata by elfprince13 · · Score: 1

    For starters "T'ealc"

    1. Re:Errata by Bucky24 · · Score: 1

      "and T'ealc, a member of a genetically engineered warrior race who serve the Goa'uld"

      http://sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/stargate_sg-1
      But I agree that the characters should get their own articles. I mean they could have at least mentioned WHAT that genetically engineered warrior race was called.

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
    2. Re:Errata by elfprince13 · · Score: 1

      I didn't say omissions. I said errata. The correct spelling.

    3. Re:Errata by Bucky24 · · Score: 1

      Ah, you're right. I misunderstood.

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
  26. About DS9 and TNG by dsinc · · Score: 1

    "Like The Next Generation, the show affected a dialogue and acting style that was stiff and unrealistic" ...aaaand I'm outta here.

  27. scifi.wikia.com by ZombieBraintrust · · Score: 1

    How does it compare to scifi.wikia.com? It seems from the description that this encyclopedia is released in editions and is not user generated. Don't think I will be that impressed with it.

    1. Re:scifi.wikia.com by valugi · · Score: 0

      much better indeed. dune.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page is way better that the results from this

  28. Descriptions are more critiques than anything else by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After reading a few of the entries, it seems to be more of a critic than an encyclopedia. After looking up several items, I didn't find it particularly useful.

  29. Quark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    BOOO!

    No entry for Quark!

    BOOOO!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark_(TV_series)

  30. Useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Entry Search > “starwars”
    Your search didn't return any results.

    I mean really. What use is this if they don't even have that much?

  31. grok by OFnow · · Score: 2

    Search for 'grok'. You won't find it on this encyclopedia. Enough said.

  32. Deleted from the *print* version by pavon · · Score: 4, Informative

    All the deleted items listed in the link you provided are things they deleted in the 2nd edition of their book to make room for more worthy material given page limits imposed by their publisher. The very first paragraph makes clear that this is no longer a concern in the online version:

    The notes below, from the 1993 second edition, are largely unrevised. In general we have been able to relax many constraints previously forced on us by the space limitations of a single printed volume. Some authors of short stories only, like Vance AANDAHL, appeared in the first edition, were cut to save space in the second and are now restored;

    There is nothing in that article that suggests they plan on cutting material because it is non-notable. Only an admission that there is a lot of Sci-Fi out there and only so much time to write. I think they are destined to fail compared to fan contributed sites given this limitation, but that has nothing to do with deletionism.

  33. epic failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    light saber... yields no results
    I quit

    1. Re:epic failure by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      light saber... yields no results I quit

      I'd take that as a good sign. There probably aren't any entries for "Hansel and Gretel" or "Harry Potter's magic wand" either, considering neither of these have anything much to do with science fiction either.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  34. I think it's a terrifc summary of the genre by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    [Disclosure: I wrote some entries for the second edition]. One of the things about science fiction as a genre is that many of the authors in the ghetto ended up having a conversation with each other about science fiction's themes, tropes and iconography, to the point where a common vocabulary was created. Authors don't need to describe how a FTL drive works, or what an ansible does, they are part of the common discourse. Writing a story where the last two people left alive on Earth are called Adam and Eve is just so passe, yet newcomers to the genre still want to believe their nifty ideas are "new" (and sometimes they persuade their publishers, who sometimes can persuade the book-buying public. I have a copy of Theroux's O-Zone to give away if you want it). The value to me of the Encyclopedia was that its essays dissected the development and permutations of the discourse, pointing out the innovators and those who rode on their coat-tails. Also in the author entries the significant works were discussed, and the potboilers and contractual obligation works were left to "Other works" - an invaluable aid to where best to spend money. The Encyclopedia added to the language - the entry on Big Dumb Objects has resulted in the concept being part of the SF critic's critical toolkit, for example. From it too I noticed that so much of the borrowing that goes on in SF has a lag which sees film and TV genre (sci-fi) lagging behind the written word (SF). For example, Poul Anderson, Ursula Le Guin and Anne McCaffrey all ought to get credit for their conceptions without which Avatar falls apart. But as well as breadth and depth, it's the consistency of the critical voice of the Encyclopedia's editors that makes it an excellent critical work - as a reader I may agree or disagree with the editors' views, but at least I know how and why they take the angles that they do. And if I wish to disagree, then I had better get my thinking cap on.

  35. 20 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Searched on star wars, and saw they didn't have the christmas special listed, as related TV show. This seems like a work in progress, but after 20 years you would think some of the main-stream fiction would be more complete.

  36. Re:LEARN TO SPELL IT !! IT'S SyFy !! by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    *Sigh* I wouldn't have had to post this if you hadn't responded to an AC sitting at -1, so please stop it. DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS!

    "SyFy" is a rather gay trademark for a really bad "science fiction" TV network that has little science fiction at all, let alone good science fiction.

    Giant cockroaches aren't sci-fi, even if Colm Meaney's in that awful movie (hey, he was in Die Hard II, too, and it wasn't sci-fi. And, why does he seem to die in every non-Star Trek movie he's in?)

    As you pointed out, elves and trolls aren't sci-fi, either.

  37. Re:20 years? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    I can put something like this together in a month from code w better nav aond colors prolly

    Maybe, but you'd need to write it so people could actually read it. A bright six year old could have posed a more literate comment.

  38. Please, someone tell Hollywood by TheSkepticalOptimist · · Score: 1

    Hollywood seems to be at a loss for good ideas for science fiction movies. They should review this encyclopedia and start looking up sci-fi greats like Isaac Asimov for suggestions for movies as opposed to churning out comic book fodder from Stan Lee.

    --
    I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
  39. Hopefully it is Sci-Fi and not SyFy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hopefully it is Sci-Fi and not SyFy!

  40. Good news by Taylorz1 · · Score: 0

    This is also good, at least very convenient.2012 cheap ugg

  41. www.bangtoysmall.com by toysmall · · Score: 1

    Lovely bear keychain, so convenient and beautiful! As the gifts send to your friends, classmates and lovers. You are worth it! More surprise on the www.bangtoysmall.com It's the right toys mall! http://www.bangtoysmall.com/ toys shop toy store novelty toy