Talk:Urban fantasy/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Urban fantasy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Untitled

so what about things like Dresdin Files or Tails from the nightside?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.251.40 (talk) 02:45, 4 June 2007‎

The term has changed meaning over time and is used differently by different people. As a genre, it seems to encompass anything involving fantasy elements and a real world setting. As a marketing category, it seems to mainly refer to the elves in racecars stuff. Post-Buffy, Laurell K. knockoff, vampire hunter snark stuff is often labeled as Fantasy Noir, Urban Fantasy Noir, Dark Fantasy, Urban Horror, etc. I don't think publishers have settled on a consistent term, but that's the category I'd place Jim Butcher's Dresden Files series in. Another related genre is Paranormal Romance, which is often the very same stuff but sold by romance imprints instead of sf/f/horror ones. The trouble is that definitions of this stuff come from highly non-authoritative interviews with people in the publishing world, and they don't all agree. It's hard to find encyclopedia-worthy sources. Franzeska (talk) 17:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn't Dresden Files a little too new (2000) to be considered seminal in the genre? American Gods, War for the Oaks and Newford were all good examples because they were early contributions. I don't deny that Dresden is urban fantasy, but I don't see how it's a particularly important or early work. It seems like the Anita Blake series, which has been running since the early 1990's, is much more influential in terms of how it's formed the Urban Fantasy genre. (I'm sure some people don't want the genre associated with what many people considered little more than erotica, but there's no denying Hamilton's influence on Urban Fantasy.)--Sailor Titan (talk) 20:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sailor Titan (talk • contribs) 20:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello!

Does anybody else think that Anthony Horowitz (with The Power of Five) and/or Jonathan Stroud (Bartimaeus-Trilogy) should be added too? --91.35.245.37 (talk) 15:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent Change

I've removed the notation questioning the presence of Jim Butcher's Dresden series on this list. I realize that there may be debate over the technical definition of the genre, but I feel that the quibbling should be done on the discussion page rather than on the entry itself. In general terms, it's inclusion is not incorrect. Perhaps not perfect, but not incorrect. Until a more authoritative definition can be located, there's no reason to confuse readers who are most likely visiting this article for reading recommendations. - (User:Pipedreamergrey)

That (hopefully) objectively been done, I would like to suggest that the definition of "Urban Fantasy" is superficially self-explanatory. It's a fantasy story that takes place in an urban setting. I also think that there are deeper connotations inherent in the label, such as the novel's setting being somehow being intertwined into the story. Therefore, those novels not set in a city aught to be disqualified from this list ahead of the Dresden files, which extremely involved its Chicago setting. On the who though, I think "Urban Fantasy" has become the "Film Noir" of our day. Everyone knows it when they see it. Everyone loves it. But no one can precisely define it. - (User:Pipedreamergrey)

Citations are needed. I have trimmed the list and added tags. Reviewswers and critics can be used as sources, not editors opinions. 99% of fantasy takes place in an urban setting, including most high fantasy, therefore we need more than a simple checklist of "fantasy" and "urban setting".

the very fact of the "dubious tag" was there shows another editors disagrees with your POV, therefore a source is needed. I notice that the tag was added because the Dresden files may be UF, but is no way important or seminal to the genre, therefore should not be in such a short ist alongside works that defined the genre like the Newford Stories or Emaa Bull.

Yobmod (talk) 10:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

99% may be overstating matters a bit, and high fantasy does not qualify as urban fantasy by virtue of being high fantasy. However, as I wrote earlier, there definitely are deeper connotations to the term. We need a more authoritative definition with which to work. I can't find one online. Hopefully, another editor with access to a proper library could find one in print. If so, I hope they'll post it.

As to Jim Butcher's inclusion in the list, I still maintain that it should remain. Butcher was on the New York Times best-sellers list just a few months back and three of his books are still on the USA Today best sellers list. So, even if his work isn't "seminal," it can at least be credited with maintaining (maybe even establishing?) the genre's current popularity.

- User:Pipedreamergrey (talk) 03:26, January 25, 2009 (UTC)

I've added John Clute's definition from The Encyclopedia of Fantasy; I think that helps with the distinction of urban fantasy from other sorts of contemporary fantasy. - PKM (talk) 18:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks great, and is much easier to understand (even with Clute's usual complicated was of saying things :-) ).Yobmod (talk) 19:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Perfect. That passage is exactly what was needed. Thank you. Now that there's a proper explanation, there's no need for the entry to degenerate into a lengthy list of examples, and I have no objection to the list being trimmed back. User:Pipedreamergrey (talk) 08:45, February 5, 2009 (UTC)

If the intent is to only include seminal works of Urban Fantasy that is fine, but then I think it should say something like "seminal urban fantasy authors", rather than "Urban fantasy authors". Shirley Ku (talk) 21:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Expansion

I've updated this article to distinguish between the two types of urban fantasy, the one that is like mythic fiction and the one that is like paranormal romance. Hopefully it makes some sort of sense. I am sure someone will let me know if it doesn't. - PKM (talk) 01:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

List of urban fantasy authors list

I've been wondering if the series which do not have dedicated articles should link to the relevant part of the author page? For example

Ilona Andrews (The Kate Daniels series)

would become

Ilona Andrews (The Kate Daniels series)

I like that it will create a consistent list but it might be semi redundant, since we are already linking to the author article, so I thought I would ask.--Elfwood (talk) 17:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Urban vs. contemporary fantasy

I'd like to see this article explain a little more clearly how urban fantasy is distinct from other forms of fantasy in contemporary settings. marbeh raglaim (talk) 11:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I likewise would like to see more discussion regarding whether Urban fantasy is just a flavor of Magic realism.

--Mechphisto (talk) 15:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Magic Realism is different because in Magical Realism, magic is an accepted part of everyday life for most people and is usually fairly "mundane" in that it involves everyday-type activities. In Urban fantasy, magic is always highlighted as being "exceptional" and is usually used in exceptional circumstances (fighting evil/crime, secret magical wars against evil, etc.) Unfortunately I don't really have any references outside of primary sources (magical realism = Like Water for Chocolate, Chocolat, urban fantasy = War for the Oaks, Dresden Files.) --Sailor Titan (talk) 20:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sailor Titan (talk • contribs) 20:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Any idea if there's any published discussion regarding either of these questions? They would be good to address if there's anything we can cite about them. Aleta ^Sing 00:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Urban *tends to be in the time sub-genre of Contemporary. It does not mean it's exclusive to it. Magic Realism can also happen in a Contemporary Urban Fantasy. In which case it would be a Magic Realism Contemporary Urban Fantasy. Magic Realism would be a theme genre. But you can also have Urban fantasy on other planets. The only definition you need is that it happens in a city. That's it.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 15:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Who qualifies as notable?

I was doing a little research on Emma Bull's War for the Oaks, and found its mention on this page bizarre. It is mentioned almost as an afterthought under History, but the examples of the genre are filled with authors and books that don't seem to warrant their own Wikipedia page. Has this article turned into an open field for authors to just promote themselves? --173.160.170.98 (talk) 20:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Ideally, the amount of weight given to a topic should relate to whether it has reliable sources to support its importance. If you've been doing research related to this topic, you are probably ideally situated to improve the article. Just be sure to cite your sources. Augurar (talk) 00:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

So Many Urban Fantasy Authors!

Is it really necessary to list 48 urban fantasy authors? I feel like this adds nothing to the article. It might be better to choose a few notable urban fantasy authors and briefly describe their significance. I mean, I guess it's better to have all these authors than none at all, but I think this is a Library of Babel situation where there is so much information that it is no longer useful. Augurar (talk) 05:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I think your proposal is interesting. The challenge may be determining who's "notable enough" and who should go. I've presented the list in a condensed, hide/show form for the time being. I know this doesn't exactly address the issue you've raised, but it makes that part of the article a little less prominent. -- James26 (talk) 04:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

If we're going to have a list, then Jamie Delano should be there for Hellblazer (even though there are other authors). Come to think of it, Hellblazer is probably worth including in the main article, since it's a paradigm of the genre. Solri (talk) 09:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the only way to deal with this in the long run is to have a List of urban fantasy authors and have a more comprehensive list (as long as each item is sourced). The important contributors to the genre are the ones in the body of the article (when sourced, of course) and trying to tag on a list of notable or important authors to the end is going to be doomed to failure. (Emperor (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC))

This. I also feel that the most important authors will be references in the course of the article. As it stands, this page looks like an advertisement for a random assortment of authors.--Derek 17:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Urban Fantasy Definition

The top of the article asserts that Urban fantasy has to happen pretty much on Earth (or rather insinuates it). This seems like an opinion that's not backed by the article, and would make it fail for the lead section. Can anyone back up this assertion? It also seems to assert that only contemporary cities or contemporary versions of cities count, which seems odd, because Urban is place, not time period. So if someone in 2009, writes about the city in 1930's Chicago with Wizards, that's not Urban fantasy? That seems a bit odd. Urban simply means "City". So those two added definitions need sources. Also if someone does a Pseudo city on another planet that is Earth-like with city problems, how is that not Urban fantasy?

Sub-genre is broken down into place, time and theme. Nothing in the word Urban means that you can't have city problems set in the future, nor have Paranormal with Urban. =P That Publisher's Weekly quote is messed up. Of course you can have Paranormal Urban Fantasy. You can also have Paranormal Suburban fantasy. That's Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Parnormal is merely a *theme* It's not a place. (Look up the definition of the words). You can also have Historical Urban fantasy. (Ancient Rome was not a city? How not? If you focus on Rome and set it there, is that not Urban fantasy?) You can also have High Urban fantasy. ^_^ Mercedes Lackey focuses on the city in most of her Vlademar series. It's just that *right now* most people are writing Urban fantasy that is happening in the present, but that does not disinclude, say having High Dark Paranormal Romance Medieval Mythic Urban Fantasy. None of that is mutually exclusive. Perhaps setting it in a Country or a Suburb along with the city might knock the place part of the sub-genre for a loop, but there is nothing in the word "Urban" that says "Thou Shalt not set this in historical times."

I, personally, would think the article is defining, Contemporary (time period genre) Earth-based (general setting genre) Urban (Specific setting genre) fantasy, rather than Urban fantasy.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 14:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

"Also if someone does a Pseudo city on another planet that is Earth-like with city problems, how is that not Urban fantasy?" That would make most of the Discworld books and Fritz Leiber's "Swords" series urban fantasy, which seems odd to me. "Urban fantasy" does not simply mean the intersection of "urban" and "fantasy". Solri (talk) 09:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Davidjohnston29 (talk)"Modern" is part of the UF definition, but not in the sense that it always has to take place right the moment it is published. Rather it has to take place within a range of time defined by the internal combustion engine. Before the IC engine, it will always be defined as period fantasy or swords and sorcery or whatever and after it, it will generally be some kind of science fantasy —Preceding undated comment added 17:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC).

Examples in the article [2011]

I've noticed that a couple of editors have objected to some of the examples cited in the article. This is fine, as long as we talk things out here. As it stands, most paragraphs in the "Characteristics" section begin by describing a characteristic of urban fantasy. They then provide examples of how certain books use the ideas differently.

This approach earned the article a "B" rating, from two different editors, a little over a year ago. I'm not certain how this differs much from a similar section in the "Werewolf" article (also rated "B").

However, some editors seem to have taken issue with this -- and with certain sources which were included for descriptive purposes. If anyone has suggestions for changing the article/sources, or if you feel that things are in decent shape, please share your thoughts. Thanks. -- James26 (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

editors, and even two editors can be mistaken. the "c" rating "The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. The article should have references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues or require substantial clean up" seems far more applicable to the article as it currently stands. (more coming but I have to go now) Active Banana (^bananaphone 16:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I can relate. I don't have much time myself. When you come back, can you specify where you feel those "C" qualities apply to the article? I don't think it's substantially different than it was when it received the "B" rating. I've added the "Media Tie-Ins" section and maybe changed details here and there. And I've just removed the unverified "Anime" section (don't know who included that).

If you think we should go a different route than the "characteristics-followed-by-examples" approach, I'd appreciate knowing what it is. -- James26 (talk) 18:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

(opinion requested by James26) I want to address my problems with the current article. While I agree that some examples should be used, they can be a slippery slope. There are many places in this article where a certain trope will be mentioned, and then followed by multiple variations on the theme when one would suffice. I personally feel that examples should come from the earliest use of a trope, or at least from the most visible mainstream books. Sourced or not, multiple series descriptions for the same themes makes the article look like a promotional broadside.

Another issue I have is that the bulk of adult fiction examples are from a certain type of urban fantasy, e.g. the "supernatural huntress" books. Intentionally or not, this gives the impression that the "supernatural huntress" books are the default setting for the entire urban fantasy genre. Books that predominantly feature male protagonists are largely ignored (except on the author list), as are books by female authors that fall outside the "supernatural huntress" sub-genre.

Music playlists have no bearing on the genre as a whole. Music that is directly inspired by an urban fantasy book, or that specifically uses urban fantasy themes, is OK to a degree. Videos such as book trailers are not specific to urban fantasy; that sort of thing is better suited to a Wiki page on book promotion. -- Ruthven

(note: opinion requested by James26) I agree a little with both sides. The examples as they stand do seem very subjective, even borderline on OR/synthesis. A better approach would be trying to find reliable sources that discuss the characteristics of the genre, with a few books then given for examples. I have not done any research on the availability of said sources, but it seems like the most desirable format. As Ruthven mentions, I noticed the prominence of the female huntress theme and wondered if that was not overrepresented.

In general, I think there's some room for compromise on both sides here. The prose and examples do need cleanup, although that may be better accomplished in some way other than just blanking. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 21:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

(Also commenting due to the request of James26). I have to ditto PrincessofLlyr, examples are a very tricky route which often lead to WP:OR or WP:Synthesis and ought to be avoided unless used by sources to reinforce some critical discussion of the topic. I would suggest, that one should go through the article and try to eliminate the too obvious case studies. I think right now the article relies to much on the offhand comments made by reviewers on individual books and should instead try to find more surveys of what it means to be urban fantasy. I would imagine that their are at least several commentary that survey the genre that would be useful, Sadads (talk) 22:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinions, everyone.

@ Ruthven -- As I don't personally read much urban fantasy, I, myself, am not certain whether the "supernatural huntress" thing is the default setting for the entire genre. According to the two sources cited at the beginning of the "Adult" section, that's the style that largely dominates the adult genre (which is what the article states). I'd be fine with narrowing the examples down to "the earliest use of a trope, or at least from the most visible mainstream books." I think that some of the books mentioned may actually be among the most visible (particularly by Hamilton and Harrison).

@ PrincessofLlyr and Sadads -- I agree that articles on the genre as a whole, particularly ones that cite their own examples, would help the page out. Actually, I think that the two sources mentioned above are the right kinds of articles in those regards (though the first doesn't really cite any examples). I haven't found many others at present, but I'll do some looking. -- James26 (talk) 21:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly, that article addresses the conflicting definitions of "urban fantasy." My take is that most "supernatural huntress" books are a variant of urban fantasy, but not representative of the entire genre. While that article's focus was mostly on "supernatural huntress" books, it did so because it was largely about books that would appeal to "Buffy" fans. It briefly mentioned Neil Gaiman and John Levitt, among others. Ruthven

Now that we've discussed things, I'm not opposed to anyone tagging this appropriately for clean-up if they feel a tag is really necessary (I didn't think the "source" tag used by another editor was appropriate, for the reasons mentioned in edit history -- and also because the less notable sources contain statements by people in publishing). I ultimately want what's beneficial for the article. -- James26 (talk) 18:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Haven't done much editing here until recently. The article seems to be in decent shape at the moment. I still think the sourced examples are used somewhat similarly to those in the Werewolf article (which has some unsourced examples too).

Ruthven -- Supernatural huntress books likely don't represent the "entire genre." As mentioned, the source asserts that they're a prominent part of the genre, which is also what this Wikipedia article states.

If anyone knows of sources which discuss other prominent parts of urban fantasy, I imagine they could be good additions to this article. -- James26 (talk) 23:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Problems

This article has several problems. One is that people writing it apparently don't have a solid grounding in the recent history of fantasy. Perfectly illustrated with the position of Emma Bull in the article. Emma Bull's War for the Oaks is one of the books that caused the label to be coined, together with, for instance, the Borderland series edited by Terry Windling (Life on the Border, Bordertown and Borderland). There are other writers included in that initial wave of the subgenre like, off the top of my head, Megan Lindholm (that is, the later Robin Hobb) with Wizard of the Pigeons, Bull's husband Will Shetterly, Charles de Lint and so on.

Second, the definition. Yes, people started putting everything and anything under the label. But that initial wave had pretty strict rules - take your average modern American city, add high fantasy creatures (elves, goblins, shifters, leprechauns etc.) or just magic in it, and you've got urban fantasy. Yes, it focuses on the place, but equally or possibly even more importantly, it focuses on the intrusion of the fantastic into everyday world. Urban fantasy has to be set in the everyday world, mostly cities, but not every fantasy that's set in a city is urban fantasy. For example, Glen Cook's P.I. Garrett series is (mostly) set in cities, but it's not urban fantasy.

Which brings me to third. Quite a lot of books mentioned in the article simply took off from urban fantasy and created subgenres of their own, using the setting for their own purposes. I don't think that books focusing on romantic elements or how cool vampires are should be classified as urban fantasy. It's just like with cyberpunk. There are so many books with cyberpunk elements now, but they are not cyberpunk. So, while Sookie Stackhouse might be classified as urban fantasy, I'd say that Anita Blake is not. In the same vein, I'd also say that Butcher's Dresden is definitely urban fantasy.

BTW, this is not original research, this is experience. :) I've read quite a lot of urban fantasy books as they were coming out plus discussed them in various places, sometimes with their authors. Vlatkojk (talk) 15:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

You are mostly correct, but the label, "urban fantasy" was in use before Emma Bull's War of the Oaks so it couldn't have possibly have helped anyone to coin it. Hell, when it was used in the 80s in reviews it was not to name a genre, but more of a way to describe it: Such and such's book is one of a recent trend in urban fantasies... The label was used to describe movies in the 80s and also things that had nothing to do with fiction, like the plans of policy makers, etc. This leads me to believe that the label was in use long before the 80s, maybe even as far back as the 60s.

I do agree that Urban Fantasy involves the intrusion of the fantastical into the everyday setting--to me this is the best kind of UF. But this would null out those works where the fantastical became integrated with society at some point in history. Parallel world UF like the Anita Blake series doesn't fit in with "intrusion" UF. What are we to make of it? You are right about the P.I. Garrett series though; it's a variation on High Fantasy set in a city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louis Corsair (talk • contribs) 05:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

To cite or not to cite

I removed a number of citations that were either needless or too subjective to be included here--like those links to blogs. This article is supposed to be encyclopedic, but it didn't read like an encyclopedia article. It's true, just go to a local library and look through those thick encyclopedias. If you plan on editing a page you should know what these encyclopedia articles cite, reference, and STATE without referencing. Verifyable information is needed, but if this is a true secondary source of information, then it must make its own assertions. For example, we don't need to cite any source in the first few sentences. Unless, of course, you make a reference to what someone said about the genre--some anecdote--like, Anita Blake has called the UF genre, "The best thing to happen to Fantasy." That would need a citation in order to verify that Anite Blake (if she was real) indeed said it. But to add citations to this article's very definition of what we mean to discuss is ridiculous.

Also, I'm going to try and eliminate all citations that go to an author's blog, unless that information has something to do with that particular author or their books. This article is not meant to show Author X's version of Urban Fantasy; information from an author's blog is relevant if it adds to what article says. For example, if in one of the sections you say that Urban Fantasy protagonists are rarely homosexual, then you can add a quote from an author that might explain why they do not, and after discuss other authors.

The sections on "adult" and "young adult" UF seem irrelevant, since it does not make sense to shrink such vast discussions. I plan on adding a section called "The Urban Fantasy Definition Debate" which discusses the vast differences among authors over what constitutes Urban Fantasy. I also will add a section called "Etymology" which will include referenced material that shows how the term Urban Fantasy came about.

***

Okay, I started the changes, though they are by no means complete. What I am going to do next is delete all those citations that link to blog entries--why you would use these, I don't know. I think many of the people who edit these pages don't understand the difference between verifiable information and information that needs to be cited. For example, if I write that Neil Gaiman said on his blog that Urban Fantasy is childish, then that would be something that needs a citation, preferably a link to this entry (if it still exists). But if I say that his novel, American Gods, includes an assortment of mythical deities, then that information is verifiable--that means it can be proven correct, either by reading the novel or by looking up the information in a library catalog or a similar database; it doesn't need a citation from a page or book that says that American Gods does indeed include an assortment of deities.

In this article you guys ran amok with citations.

Okay, I added an Etymology section that is very thorough and well-researched. Later on, I will expand the History section before beefing up the Hardboiled Detective Urban Fantasy sub-section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louis Corsair (talk • contribs) 20:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I just deleted about a dozen of the authors of Urban Fantasy you had in the author's section. They just don't belong on this page. Charlaine Harris doesn't write Urban Fantasy, she write rural fantasy. Others write similar things. If your authors write fantasy set in rural places or schools or the like, then it likely is not urban fantasy, but contemporary fantasy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louis Corsair (talk • contribs) 23:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Louis Corsair (talk) 07:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and expanded the Hardboiled Urban Fantasy section and will follow it up with a few references to opinions about the subject. Louis Corsair (talk) 18:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. A lot of the arguments you've made seem based on personal opinion. If you have a problem with an article, then you need to specify where it does not fall in line with Wikipedia policy.

The article does not need to "make its own assertions." That sounds like original research. The blogs used as sources are written by, or contain statements from, professional authors of urban fantasy. Professional authors qualify as reliable sources, whether their statements appear on their own blogs or in The New York Times. Also, claims made within this encyclopedia need to be verifiable, which is why the definition of urban fantasy, and other statements, are sourced.

If you're going to add information, then you need to include sources. If you're going to remove sources, then please explain how they did not verify the statements within the article. Thanks. -- James26 (talk) 10:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear James,

The problem with citing authors and their opinions is that there are a ***t load of them who are self-proclaimed urban fantasy writers. In that case, who do we cite here? This is especially problematic if their views conflict--and right now, the views on most blogs that talk about urban fantasy conflict in one way or another. I'm an urban fantasy author too and I disagree with that initial definition that stands now. Can I change that and then cite my own blog as "verification" of the information? It doesn't make sense. Also, if we were to forget academic rules and use the thoughts of a "professional" urban fantasy author, then for decency's sake use the thoughts of an established author, someone well known, like Neil Gaiman, Mercedes Lackey, etc., not the thoughts of some unknown (the beginning of this article cites Jeannie Holmes).

Case in point: I'm going to delete that line where you cite Jeannie Holmes' personal blog and replace it with a number of citations from books, whose thoughts agree with my own on this subject--George R.R. Martin, and others. Louis Corsair (talk) 05:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:DATED, we generally avoid using terms such as "currently," or discussing what people are "still" doing these days. Also, the sentences that you included were redundant; they basically re-established that the the urban and contemporary settings are a prominent part of the genre.

I restored the citation to Jeannie Holmes's summary. You did not establish that what she said was inaccurate. Actually, several of the other sources in this article contain examples of what she describes, which supports her definition.

As for the conflicts you mentioned, right now I only have your word on that. However, saying that people's opinions conflict in "one way or another" does not specify how the sources used in this article are inaccurate.

And don't get me wrong, Louis -- I'm not trying to be mean or dismissive. I'm just citing policy, which is what edits are supposed to be based on. Thanks. -- James26 (talk) 07:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

revised arrangement of this page [2013]

I added whitespace for readability, both readable code and (except the latest, extra-long section) indentation where appropriate.

I moved two "recent" sections down from the top, where they must have been inserted, to Sections 8 and 10 (of eleven). They may have been missed. --although there was a reply to current section 10 #Problems the last day this page was revised. --P64 (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Teen Fiction Section

"While several adult stories focus on professional heroes, many teen urban fantasy novels follow inexperienced protagonists who are unexpectedly drawn into paranormal struggles. Amidst these conflicts, characters often gain allies, find romance, and, in some cases, develop or discover supernatural abilities of their own.[6] In Kelley Armstrong's The Darkest Powers series, a group of teens with paranormal talents go on the run while fleeing from a persistent band of scientists.[12] Gone, by Michael Grant, follows an isolated town in which adults have mysteriously disappeared, leaving a society of super-powered children behind."

Problem there is that it is defining paranormal or supernatural Fantasy by focusing on the problems from the paranormal or supernatural. For it to count as Urban, the city has to be a major influence on the problems the characters face. (as per the definition from the critics). So instead of listing the paranormal aspects, which should get a side mention that these two are often paired in contemporary times, shouldn't the article focus on how problems of the city, urban living, etc in fantastical ways affects the characters? Leave the paranormal and supernatural to the paranormal and supernatural fantasy article. How does it relate to the city? i.e. What makes it Urban Fantasy? Not what makes it paranormal/supernatural fantasy and by the way, did you know it was Urban Fantasy? Please fix the examples to keep inline with the definition.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 03:34, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

unnecessary info

in the adult and teen sections there is a whole lot of random examples of books and authors(with descriptions) of no particular note compared to the vast majority of other urban fiction. especially as its highly subjective and the examples are extremely narrow. the first example Laurell K. Hamilton's Anita Blake series makes sense, though it should have a link to whomever was making the claim about it being influential.

i propose a list in each section using a table featuring a range of notable works with only title, author and possibly a good-reads score similar to how movies and TV shows are done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.189.95.164 (talk) 08:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Urban fantasy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Core Definition

I've checked here a few times, and I think the core definition as stated ("magical rules or elements operating in an urban setting") is incorrect, and moreover doesn't match the linked references. Urban fantasy is more commonly accepted to be set in contemporary, real-world settings, and the "urban" bit is arguably a distraction (e.g. some would say a countryside setting is fine). It's difficult to reference this, though, but I'll try. TV Tropes and Goodreads both disagree with the definition here, for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordjim13 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the definition is not quite correct, but mainly because from what research I've read, there appears to be no consensus on what urban fantasy is. People have opinions every which way. There is an article in Journal of the Fantastic in the Arts ("Urban Fantasy: A Literature of the Unseen") that looks at several definitions and tries to find what they have in common. Maybe better to change to acknowledge that there is no definition accepted by everyone? --Glitterspont (talk) 11:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)