Talk:List of female vampires in SF: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(notes) |
(c) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
...okay, moved this page since LQ fixed the title, but still: ...doesn't the presence of a vampire automatically make the work SF (for a definition of SF that includes supernatural works, horror, etc.), thereby making "in SF" redundant? --[[User:Ide Cyan|Ide Cyan]] 21:37, 29 April 2007 (PDT) | ...okay, moved this page since LQ fixed the title, but still: ...doesn't the presence of a vampire automatically make the work SF (for a definition of SF that includes supernatural works, horror, etc.), thereby making "in SF" redundant? --[[User:Ide Cyan|Ide Cyan]] 21:37, 29 April 2007 (PDT) | ||
: grin. i was thinking that for slayers too. and umm other things like seers etc. didn't come to a decision. just left "in SF" in title for consistency on most then on the last occupational category i did (female superheroes) it was all just too absurd and i couldn't add the "in SF". what do you think? use "in SF" for everything dealing with characters (i picked "in SF" because it was fewer characters and synonymous enough with "... characters...") consistency to make sure that we don't have to deal with some wack fan who insists that she really is a slayer or has porphyria and is a vampire or something? or acknowledge the redundant absurdity? i'm on the | : grin. i was thinking that for slayers too. and umm other things like seers etc. didn't come to a decision. just left "in SF" in title for consistency on most then on the last occupational category i did (female superheroes) it was all just too absurd and i couldn't add the "in SF". what do you think? use "in SF" for everything dealing with characters (i picked "in SF" because it was fewer characters and synonymous enough with "... characters...") consistency to make sure that we don't have to deal with some wack fan who insists that she really is a slayer or has porphyria and is a vampire or something? or acknowledge the redundant absurdity? i'm on the fence on this one and looking for good arguments one way or the other. seers, for instance -- god knows there are lots of real people who claim to be psychics or seers ... deities ... etc. i want to make a joke about some sexist profession but i'm just too damn tired. --[[User:Lquilter|LQ]] 22:29, 29 April 2007 (PDT) | ||
Latest revision as of 21:29, 29 April 2007
In Space? WTF? --Ide Cyan 21:34, 29 April 2007 (PDT)
...okay, moved this page since LQ fixed the title, but still: ...doesn't the presence of a vampire automatically make the work SF (for a definition of SF that includes supernatural works, horror, etc.), thereby making "in SF" redundant? --Ide Cyan 21:37, 29 April 2007 (PDT)
- grin. i was thinking that for slayers too. and umm other things like seers etc. didn't come to a decision. just left "in SF" in title for consistency on most then on the last occupational category i did (female superheroes) it was all just too absurd and i couldn't add the "in SF". what do you think? use "in SF" for everything dealing with characters (i picked "in SF" because it was fewer characters and synonymous enough with "... characters...") consistency to make sure that we don't have to deal with some wack fan who insists that she really is a slayer or has porphyria and is a vampire or something? or acknowledge the redundant absurdity? i'm on the fence on this one and looking for good arguments one way or the other. seers, for instance -- god knows there are lots of real people who claim to be psychics or seers ... deities ... etc. i want to make a joke about some sexist profession but i'm just too damn tired. --LQ 22:29, 29 April 2007 (PDT)