Talk:List of fictional scientists and engineers

A NEEDED CHANGE

This page is redirected from the page for listing fiction heroic scientists. This page itself should be the "List of fictional scientists and engineers."

I say wechange it so what is already up gets put in a page for heroic scientsts, and we use this page to list to list the lists. list of things like heroic scientsts, mad scientist, evil geniuses, and other such people. Corrupt one 03:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Question: How do we get to the original list of mad scientists in fiction?-Griffonclaw — Preceding unsigned comment added by Griffonclaw (talk • contribs) 01:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Character scope

Are we supposed to enter English-language literary sci/tech figures only, or might there be place for other (western culture?) heroes as well in this article? Just wondering. (All descriptions and references would necessarily have to be in English, of course.) --Wernher 23:29, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Any appropriate characters will do. - Kchishol1970

Comical 'heroes'

Are heroes of a more comical flavor suitable for inclusion? An example I just added is the boy genius Dexter (cartoon character), who some times, in some ways, is a hero, but equally often just makes a total mess (bad luck, obviously). :-) --Wernher 07:28, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Article title change?

I just noticed that there is a suitable category for this article: Fictional heroic scientists (hmm, I feel inclined to add " and engineers" to that one). In that regard, I started to wonder whether we should rather rename the present article to List of fictional heroic scientists and engineers (i.e., swap "fictional" and "heroic") ? --Wernher 03:30, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Extreme makeover!

I just re-did this page. I put all the names in alphabetical order, and gave them a harmonious look. It now goes: Hero name (movie/book/series) Description Please don't mess it up ;)

I also added two new categories for Star Trek heroes and DC/Marvel Comic heroes, because there are so many of them.

And I added a new hero, Dr. Dyson of Terminator 2. How could he have been forgotten for so long!

--Ritchy 19:20, 20 Jun 2005

And I added a new hero, Dr. Dyson of Terminator 2. How could he have been forgotten for so long!

What can we say? We blew it! He should have been on board miles and miles ago! Atlant 12:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Would've been more appropriate to put the title names in italics, instead of the names. Kieff | Talk July 1, 2005 05:07 (UTC)

Done and done. It now has the look:

• Hero Name (movie/book/series) Description.

--Ritchy 10:50, 3 July 2005

Thanks, but you edited out Cyrus Smith. Please be more careful next time. Samohyl Jan 17:33, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Are archaeologists really scientists?

I was wondering this because archaeologists (like Indiana Jones) don't really deal with empirical data. They deal with interpretations of history. History itself cannot be analyzed empirically because mostly we are left with previous individual's often subjective account of the past. What archaeologists do most of the time is try to achieve a more objective interpretation of the past based on what is already known or written. Doesn't that just make them another type of historian?Mr. ATOZ 18:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Last I checked, archeology was considered a science. A sometimes controvertial one, that's true, but the purpose of this page isn't to expose or settle this debate. We should just stick with the accepted convention that archeology is a science, until the issue is settled. --Ritchy 01:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Toshi Sato invented universal translator?

Maybe I am mis-remembering, but it seems to me that the universal translator was a gift from the Metrons in the TOS episode where Kirk battles the Gorn. ChrisWinter 03:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Hal Emmerich (Otacon) Error...

Otacon didn't create Metal Gear RAY, he designed Metal Gear REX. RAY was designed by the US Marines. I changed it.

Less-specific catergories

The section "Scientists and engineers in anime and Japanese video games" should just be "Scientists and engineers in animation and video games", seeing as there are obviously more animated programmes and video games than anime and Japanese video games. Also, Star Trek shouldn't have its own section, seeing as there are a lot of scientists in other TV programmes. This looks like a pretty biased article. I also changed "Gordan Freeman" to "Gordon Freeman", its correct spelling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coozins (talk • contribs) 00:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Changed titles

I changed the title of "Scientists in Anime and Japanese video games" to "Scientists in animation and video games". The title was too biased. There are other video games than Japanese ones, you know, and Anime isn't the only type of animated programme that exists. I also added three scientists that I thought were worth mentioning: Albert Wesker and William Birkin from Resident Evil 2 and Dr. Zoidberg from Futurama. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coozins (talk • contribs) 22:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Not referenced

This article needs third party references to verify both the accuracy of the article and the notability of the subject or it is likely to suffer the same fate as List of fictional characters by IQ. Chillum 15:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I am going to submit this article to AfD if sources are not added demonstrating the facts claimed as well as demonstrating that the topic itself it notable. I will wait at least one more week, though this article has had since 2007 to be brought up to standards. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_fictional_characters_by_IQ_(2nd_nomination) for an expansion of my concerns as they applied to a similar article. Chillum 14:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I am now beginning to draft my AfD arguments. I would try {{prod}} first however this page has already once gone to AfD. Chillum 02:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Lensman people?

I've only read the first book of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lensman , but it's considered a fairly important series and I think there are like a *billion* scientists in it. :)

-Robin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.13.139.233 (talk) 04:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Removed Star Trek section

You need to understand that Wikipedia is for everyone, not just Star Trek nerds. Just because you like Star Trek it doesn't mean you have to make an entire section dedicated to it on every Wikipedia page. This is as irrelevant as having a section dedicated to dark-haired fictional scientists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.86.100 (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I have reinserted the heading. I have no objection to merging the list, but if anyone else does so then please arrange the entries into alphabetical order. – Fayenatic London 09:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Categories for women

See Category talk:Fictional women scientists and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 15#Category:Fictional women engineers. – Fayenatic London 09:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Star Trek and mad scientist sections

This is Wikipedia, not a Star Trek website. There is absolutely no reason Star Trek to have its own section in the article. What I propose is that we do with the Star Trek list is merge it with all of the other characters in the "Individual scientist/engineers" section (in alphabetical order).

However, I also have a second proposition: after the Star Trek section has been merged, we replace it with a section devoted specifically for fictional characters considered to be mad scientists, mad doctors, mad surgeons, mad engineers, ETC. I feel that mad scientist is a category different from your "regular" (for lack of a better word) scientist characters and I think it is important and different enough for its own category. I will wait for other editors to respond to this before I even attempt to do this but if you disagree with any of this, please state so and state why.Darkknight2149 (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)User:Darkknight2149

Merging the Star Trek section would be fine, as discussed above. Other editors seem to have thought it was acceptable as a sub-section due to its length. Years ago, there was an introduction to that section, stating inclusion criteria: [1]. It

As for mad scientists, given that there is an article for the topic, it may be justifiable to make a list of mad scientists – indeed, it has a link to List of mad scientists which redirects here, although AFAIK there has not been a separate "mad" section here before. However, Talk:Mad scientist has a couple of discussions which show that the list was problematic in the past. Would you make any separate sub-sections for different things called "mad", e.g. absent-minded professors and evil geniuses? Would you leave their entries in the existing lists, or move them into the new section? – Fayenatic London 08:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@[[Fayenatic]]The mad scientist section would basically be any scientific character considered "mad," though if I do not object to having sub-sections such as what you mentioned. I think the mad scientist entries in other sections (for example, Dr. Strangelove or Dr. Frankenstein in "Individual scientist/engineers") would have to be moved because it wouldn't make sense to list them twice.Darkknight2149 (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)User:Darkknight2149

Good work incorporating the Star Trek characters into the list, @Darkknight2149. However, I have a some points to bring up. (1) If the reason for integrating Star Trek into the main list is because the article needs to be more respective to the general public, then should we still be using the abbreviations TNG, VOY, DS9 etc. without explaining what they are? I believe the titles should be spelled out. (2) Several scientists, including Emmett Brown (BTTF) and Hubert Farnsworth (Futurama) among others, are on both lists. (3) The heading "In animation and television" is misleading, in that it seems to include two things. Perhaps, "In television animation" might be better. (4) A question on one specific Star Trek character. Is not Noonian Soong a mad scientist? Thank you.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 09:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@Michael J 1) Good point. I will try to single out the Star-Trek characters and spell-out the show titles. 2) If a scientific character falls into more than one category then I don't think it's a problem when they are listed in more than one list, however, if you or other editors disagree, I am willing to discuss it. 3) I'll change it, unless another editor objects and reverts my edit. 4) I'm not very familiar with Noonian Soong, so I will have to research him and get back to you on that one.Darkknight2149 (talk) 20:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Darkknight2149

From what I've read, I'd say Noonian Soong CAN be considered a mad scientist due to some of his actions, though I am not sure if he's your typical mad doctor.Darkknight2149 (talk) 20:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Darkknight2149

Caesar Clown

Move Caesar Clown to the list of mad scientists as he put experiments on people and created mass destruction weapons Fredsterr (talk) 17:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)