×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

82 comments

20 years? (-1, Flamebait)

SpasticWeasel (897004) | more than 2 years ago | (#38347314)

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

Re:20 years? (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | more than 2 years ago | (#38347426)

Yawn, you do better???

Re:20 years? (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | more than 2 years ago | (#38347488)

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.

Re:20 years? (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#38361196)

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.

Re:20 years? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38348238)

Yes [worldswithoutend.com]

Holes and Holes (1)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 2 years ago | (#38347536)

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

I only found [sf-encyclopedia.com] two [sf-encyclopedia.com] .

But on a more serious note, I looked up Stanislaw Lem expecting to find a footnote and was instead fairly impressed [sf-encyclopedia.com] 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 [sf-encyclopedia.com] .

Re:Holes and Holes (2)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#38347788)

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 [wikipedia.org] on Wikipedia.

Re:Holes and Holes (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38348132)

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.

Re:20 years? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38348088)

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

It isn't 20 years worth of effort. The submitter, arcite, made that up. Or simply can't read. TFA says,

The launch comes nearly two decades after the last edition was published in 1993.

Wikipedia used to be good at sci-fi. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38347370)

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.

Re:Wikipedia used to be good at sci-fi. (2, Informative)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 2 years ago | (#38347452)

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.

Re:Wikipedia used to be good at sci-fi. (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#38356874)

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.

Re:Wikipedia used to be good at sci-fi. (3, Interesting)

Trepidity (597) | more than 2 years ago | (#38347746)

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.

Re:Wikipedia used to be good at sci-fi. (2)

crossmr (957846) | more than 2 years ago | (#38349468)

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

Who cares about deletionists? (3, Insightful)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#38347416)

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

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

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.

Re:Who cares about deletionists? (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | more than 2 years ago | (#38347522)

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.

Deleted from the *print* version (4, Informative)

pavon (30274) | more than 2 years ago | (#38350814)

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.

Re:Who cares about deletionists? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38351536)

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.

memory-alpha.org (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38347442)

contains all the sci-fi information I need.

wikipaedia? (1)

OlRickDawson (648236) | more than 2 years ago | (#38347456)

I thought that all of that was tracked in wikipaedia

Re:wikipaedia? (2)

bcrowell (177657) | more than 2 years ago | (#38348124)

Take a look at WP's article on Robert Heinlein [wikipedia.org] and then at SFE's [sf-encyclopedia.com] . 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.

Re:wikipaedia? (3, Informative)

jgrahn (181062) | more than 2 years ago | (#38350060)

Take a look at WP's article on Robert Heinlein [wikipedia.org] and then at SFE's [sf-encyclopedia.com] . 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.

Re:wikipaedia? (1)

V for Vendetta (1204898) | more than 2 years ago | (#38354924)

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 [wikipedia.org] with the SF enc. entry [sf-encyclopedia.com] , I can't share your point of view.

Twent years? MODESTY BLAISE, NICK CARTER?! (4, Informative)

G3ckoG33k (647276) | more than 2 years ago | (#38347466)

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

Re:Twent years? MODESTY BLAISE, NICK CARTER?! (1)

Briareos (21163) | more than 2 years ago | (#38348080)

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)

What a lame website (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38347482)

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.

LEARN TO SPELL IT !! IT'S SyFy !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38347546)

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

Re:LEARN TO SPELL IT !! IT'S SyFy !! (1)

arcite (661011) | more than 2 years ago | (#38347678)

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

Re:LEARN TO SPELL IT !! IT'S SyFy !! (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#38360536)

*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.

And thus were millions of man-hours spent (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#38347622)

This won't solve anything.

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

and it was Kirk!

Re:And thus were millions of man-hours spent (2)

Anomalyst (742352) | more than 2 years ago | (#38347760)

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

Re:And thus were millions of man-hours spent (2)

kimvette (919543) | more than 2 years ago | (#38348422)

and.. . it WAS. . . Kirk!

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

Re:And thus were millions of man-hours spent (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#38358520)

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?)

No real info on David Brin... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38347766)

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=

OK can we agree this site sucks? (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 2 years ago | (#38347856)

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

Re:OK can we agree this site sucks? (1)

sirdude (578412) | more than 2 years ago | (#38348026)

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.

Re:OK can we agree this site sucks? (3, Insightful)

JustinOpinion (1246824) | more than 2 years ago | (#38348218)

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 [memory-alpha.org] , Wookiepedia [wikia.com] , 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.

Re:OK can we agree this site sucks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38349490)

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.

Re:OK can we agree this site sucks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38357100)

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

Random CAPITALIZATION (3, Insightful)

egomaniac (105476) | more than 2 years ago | (#38347902)

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.

A couple link I use for free sci-fi kindle e-books (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38347928)

Amazon [tinyurl.com] and feedbooks [feedbooks.com]

Congratulations, I guess... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38347946)

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.

Re:Congratulations, I guess... (1)

calinduca (1334025) | more than 2 years ago | (#38351736)

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.

Their server is 20 years old too (2)

Dynamoo (527749) | more than 2 years ago | (#38347986)

Their server is 20 years old too.. Slashdotted.

It appears to be run by a proper publishers, Hachette [hachette.co.uk] despite hiding behind a Domains By Proxy Registration.

Re:Their server is 20 years old too (1)

coyote_oww (749758) | more than 2 years ago | (#38349706)

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. :-(

ISFDB (4, Informative)

bcrowell (177657) | more than 2 years ago | (#38347990)

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

Re:ISFDB (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38353228)

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.

Re:ISFDB (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 2 years ago | (#38356690)

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,

You mean wikipedia? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38347992)

I thought Wikipedia was already live?

Re:You mean wikipedia? (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 2 years ago | (#38349102)

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.

Errata (1)

elfprince13 (1521333) | more than 2 years ago | (#38348250)

For starters "T'ealc"

Re:Errata (1)

Bucky24 (1943328) | more than 2 years ago | (#38348882)

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

http://sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/stargate_sg-1 [sf-encyclopedia.com]
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.

About DS9 and TNG (1)

dsinc (319470) | more than 2 years ago | (#38348544)

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

scifi.wikia.com (1)

ZombieBraintrust (1685608) | more than 2 years ago | (#38348614)

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.

Re:scifi.wikia.com (1)

valugi (1069088) | more than 2 years ago | (#38353736)

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

Descriptions are more critiques than anything else (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38348618)

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.

Quark (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38348674)

BOOO!

No entry for Quark!

BOOOO!

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

Yo(0 FAIL it. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38349080)

Project returns long time FRReBSD are She had taken

Useless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38350062)

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?

epic failure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38351786)

light saber... yields no results
I quit

Re:epic failure (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 2 years ago | (#38367412)

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.

I think it's a terrifc summary of the genre (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38353428)

[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.

20 years? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38355766)

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.

Please, someone tell Hollywood (1)

TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) | more than 2 years ago | (#38362224)

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.

Hopefully it is Sci-Fi and not SyFy! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38378290)

Hopefully it is Sci-Fi and not SyFy!

www.bangtoysmall.com (1)

toysmall (2513806) | more than 2 years ago | (#38395376)

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 [bangtoysmall.com] ! http://www.bangtoysmall.com/ [bangtoysmall.com] toys shop toy store novelty toy
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...