Jump to content

Talk:Alternate history

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ibanda (talk | contribs) at 10:20, 18 August 2015. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconLiterature C‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconAlternate History (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

Untitled

Peer review template has been removed, please see the bottom of the page.

Article title

The title "alternate history" gives the impression that it's referring to Historical revisionism. Fiction novels don't actually have the aim to offer an alternative to history. Wouldn't it be better to call the article something like "Alternate history in fiction", or "Fictional history"? GreyWinterOwl (talk) 15:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Alternate History" is an accepted genre in fiction; a search on Amazon.com gave nearly 3000 hits. As near as I can tell, Historical revisionism doesn't involve a point of digression or produce a new timeline.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 17:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, it is accepted as a genre in fiction, but as a stand-alone article title in an encyclopedia, it gives the impression to deal with something actually related to history, when it doesn't. "Alternate history" is a fiction genre, it's not something that actually proposes an alternate view of history. That's why I thought maybe it could be called something like "Alternate history (fiction)" or the other examples I suggested. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think our pages should be titled to reflect the common name. The content of the article can explain the details.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 20:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fine if the common name is "Alternate history", but adding "(fiction)" after it wouldn't violate common name, it would just specify that the article is about a genre of fiction, and is not related to the subject of history. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 21:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're going to have to find at least one other person who confuses AH with history.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 00:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The very first line in the article states "Alternate history or alternative reality is a genre of fiction consisting of stories..". I think that we have to assume that readers will understand what the title refers to when they hit that first up. The "Alternate history" tag has been in use for many years and don't see it as being confusing. I also don't think we should be in the business of trying to second-guess how and why readers will access a certain page. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 21:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"See also" section

In August 2013 an "organize section" maintenance tag was placed on the "See also" section indicating that the layout needed work. The Wikipedia layout guidelines state the following about such "see also" sections: "A bulleted list of internal links to related Wikipedia articles. Consider using {{Columns-list}} or {{Div col}} if the list is lengthy. The links in the 'See also' section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of 'See also' links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics."

It is my view that the current layout reflects this and the tag should be removed. If no-one objects I'll do that in about a week. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 21:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative vs Alternate

Alternative is the proper English spelling. "Alternate" is only in American English and it causes confusion because the word has a double meaning: alternate is something that alternates back and forth, like the current, whereas if we talk about history, we refer to a history that's an alternative to the real one. 14.14.77.121 (talk) 12:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

American English is just as valid as British English - neither is more "proper" than the other. Wikipedia recognizes this in its WP:ENGVAR guideline, which allows articles to be written in different varieties of English. "Alternate history" is the correct title, as this is what the concept is called in American English. - BilCat (talk) 16:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have just consulted the Merriam Webster online dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/alternate), and the first three definitions of 'alternate' do not have the meaning the authors of this article intended to express, and the fourth definition says alternative means "constituting an alternative". It is on this basis that I'm changing the title from 'Alternate history' to 'Alternative history'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.92.236.192 (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that the term was restored just after you reverted it. Using a dictionary to define one part of a phrase is inadequate. - BilCat (talk) 16:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is simply that using the verb "alternate" when "alternative" is meant is regarded as incorrect for obvious reasons (source: OED) and at best is ambiguous. There's no reason to use a word that's either wrong or confusing when there's a perfectly superior alternative.
Further, the claim that American English is just as valid as British English is completely irrelevant - the point is one word is unambiguous and only used by a subset of English speakers whereas the other is not and is used by all English speakers. It's clear which should be preferred (and that's before pointing out that the use of "alternate" in this article is a novel and minor meaning of a word that usually means something completely different). Turkeyphant 01:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the previous discussions in the two archives?--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was unable to find anything against this suggestion... Turkeyphant 17:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Check at:
Talk:Alternative history (genre)/Archive 1#'Alternate' or 'Alternative?'
Talk:Alternative history (genre)/Archive 2#Propose move to Alternative history
Not to mention #Article title near the top of this page
--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 18:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the position is in 'normal' English, the fact remains that the genre is called Alternate History. That is the accepted convention. Changing it to alternative would actually create confusion by implying something different.Ian (talk) 10:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Alternate history. 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:

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:44, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alternate_history&oldid=676654125"