Talk:Collaborative fiction/Archive 1

Archive 1

Eric Flint?

Are all the references to Eric Flint necessary to the article? While I can see using him as an example, the quote seems to be going to far. Is he really that notable when it comes to collaborative fiction in general? Crito2161 00:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I reacted to the lengthy quote as well. I deleted the quote and reduced the references to Flint. Lijil 11:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Robert Lynn Asprin - Myth Series

Thieves World is a great series that I refer people to when discussing FFRP and Collaborative fiction, and I love the series, but I'm not sure the Myth series would be considered collaborative, unless more stuff has come out not written by Asprin...? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RDI Panther (talk • contribs) 19:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

Merge from wikinovel

The outcome of the AfD from wikinovel was no consensus, but a suggestion to merge here. Whilst it is indisputable that the wikinovel is a kind of collaborative fiction, it is markedly different from the other forms discussed here, in that individual contributors don't "own" their own contribution -- i.e. they can't prevent their contributions from being edited into something entirely different later on. I think everything discussed in this article is substantially more structured, with authors owning either chapters or even entire books, or sometimes the characters within them. I think this distinction makes a merge inadvisable. Comments? JulesH 18:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I merged the content from wikinovel, hopefully the new placement is acceptable. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 02:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Time for a spring clean.

Greetings! I think there is a set of articles here that need some solid work to bring them up to standard - we have a group ( Collaborative_authorship, collaborative editing, and collaborative fiction ) of articles that are either very short, repetitive, or just not up to Wikipedia standard - I'm willing to invest some time to make this work - are there any other active editors looking at these pages who would like to be involved? I'm posting this message on the three (currently) relevant pages. I like to be quite bold with these things and we can all play with the revert cycle with no ego. I'll give it a week in case there are lurking editors who want to get involved and do the discussion thing and will get stuck in. Pflat (talk) 09:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Some quick thoughts - it would be great to have a few examples of commercially published and successful collaboratively written novels in the lead in. And it would also be great to have a lot more references in the article as a whole. I'm going to start digging for either of these. It would be also nice to find references that talk about the difference between collaborative writing and ghostwriting or editing. There's lots of instances of collabrative fiction used in education - I'll dig some of those out as well.

I've just taken world-building into it's own section out of wiki-novels as the links didn't really belong there.Pflat (talk) 22:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

While I'm going on - the groups in the origins section start at earliest in the early 1900s, yet the further reading book has the title "Collaborators in Literary America, 1870-1920." I think there might be some stuff missing there... Possibly we could rename that section to 'Origins of internet collaborative writing?' Pflat (talk) 22:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Revert from 97.125.31.87

Hello all. User 97.125.31.87 sensibly noted that both wikistory and wikistory are effectively dead links and removed the paragraph that involved them. I reverted this - because I think their former existence was interesting to the field but changed the relevant paragraph by adding fact tags, putting into past tense and changing the language a little - hopefully this goes some way to dealing with the problems that the user found. I plan to come back with some references, but have to rush off now...

Pflat (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Structure

Editors watching the page will notice lots of movement as I try and get the structure right. Will stabilise shortly AdamCaputo (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Images

More images would be great. Any ideas? AdamCaputo (talk) 18:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

rewrite...

I just rewrote the too many cooks section in response to a tag left by an editor - it's great to see that other editors are getting involved - four different people edited the article last week, which I think is a first in it's history. If you've got any suggestions ect - it would be great to see them here... AdamCaputo (talk) 10:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Collaborative fiction/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Piotrus (talk · contribs) 00:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Seems ok to this ESL, but "Legalities" should probably be renamed to legal aspects.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   First, the article does not conform to WP:LEAD: lead should be a summary; this lead isn't - it provides uncited definitions, and makes (unreferenced) claims not repeated elsewhere in the body. There is a quote box by Beth Ciotta which is discouraged by MoS, and which appears near the lead for no explicable reason. There is not enough wikilinks, starting from the lead I am seeing numerous words which should have links but don't: protagonist, pseudonym... With regards to layout, why is the academic perspective section suddenly sprouting subsections on individual novels or projects? Finally, the article seems to rely to much on quotations, I see two boxes, and at least one long (entire para) quotation in the body. PS. Dab tool notes one self-redirect, and webchecklinks notes three dead links (please see the tools in the box at the top right of this review).

Okay, have hacked at the lead, but now need to bulk it out again - probably best to do that after the rest of the article has been properly fixed. Fixed the redirect and the dead links. Moved the quote out of the lead but am aware there are more quotes than is probably reasonable - my long term plan was to cut them down as more pictures became available... have wikilinked a few things, but probably not enough, more on that shortly. The three examples are there for no particularly classification - I think the MO I was working under was to focus on those academic projects that had used collaboration for the sake of collaboration and those where the only ones I found - would that be reasonable grounds for using them as examples? AdamCaputo (talk) 23:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It would, but we should make it clear this was the reason. Something like "several cases of cf have been reviewed by academics, those include a, b and c discussed below." --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 02:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

1. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   First, reference problems. Wilson is missing page number. Numerous references are missing authors or dates. EDUCAUSE is missing a URL. I highly suggest using citation templates, and linking pages to Google Books (through this is not required). Second, not enough citations. Not only there are problems with uncited sentences; there are uncited paragraphs (first para in "Recreational collaborative writing" section) and entire sections ("The influence of tabletop gaming").

Doh! Have found references for first para in "Recreational collaborative writing" section and "The influence of tabletop gaming" - with some rewriting to get them to fit the references. Fixed EDUCAUSE as well (and also the dead links as mentioned above) I'm going to take some time to organised the references properly and solidly now and will convert to google books in the process. (The page number for wilson will be a pain as I don't have the ref handy anymore... hmm AdamCaputo (talk) 23:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

1. B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Hard to say till more information is provided, some references are just titles, such as "Orion's Arm - The Early Years".

   C. No original research:

   Not sure, till citations are provided.

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   For starters, the article does not tell us, clearly, what are the most famous collaborative works, their creators, the history of collaborative writing (I am sure it existed before 1930s, particularly in the times where works were written anonymously or told orally). What about collaborative fanfic? Collaboration in graphic novels?

   B. Focused:

   Roughly, but see the note below (why are those work offered such a prominent place here)?

3. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   What makes Caverns and A Million Penguins have their own sections, when other works don't?

4. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

5. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   The one that is, does.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   More images could be added, free or fair use, of writers / books mentioned.

6. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I am sorry to say but this article has a long way to go before becoming a GA. It needs expansion and improved citations. On the bright side, there are plenty of sources out there for this topic ([1]). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 02:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Over a week has passed, but I see work is being done. Would the editor working on this like extended time for a GA till the end of this month? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 02:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

No reply here, at at least some issues where not addressed (insuffiient lead), means that I have no choice but to fail this article for now. As there have been improvements, I'd like to encouraged the involved editor(s) to resubmit it for GA when they think that all issues have been fixed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

In Canada section

I question the value (and objectivity) of the inclusion of the "In Canada" section which currently contains only two sentences about protagonize and nothing else. The first says that it is "probably the most well known" without citing a source, and the second lists three countries of apparently random participants, with the aim being to present protagonize as having global appeal. The citations are links to the account profiles on protagonize itself. If these are published authors, their names should be mentioned in the article explicitly so their relevance is clear, otherwise I don't think there is much value in showing that a web site has users from different countries. I propose removing the section unless someone can improve it. --Frugen (talk) 03:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

SCP Foundation and similar projects

I think mentioning projects like the SCP Foundation, Global Occult Coalition, and the Wanderer's Library would help to illustrate this concept. These three alone have produced a massive amount of writings, and even short films and video game adaptations of stories. I'm sure there are other mythos and fandom based canons that deserve mention beyond those admittedly related ones, such as creepy pasta mythos like the one surrounding Slender Man. Open mindedness to including such projects is probably more in line with the spirit and purpose of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viethra (talk • contribs) 05:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Split Notes & References

So why are there 2 separate sections for the references? I think it rather should look like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Revolution#Notes_and_references

Also for most of the notes clicking them won't highlight a reference. It works with 4. Wilson but not with 1. McGoldrick for instance.

--Fixuture (talk) 01:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

"Antiquated ideas"

Collaborative fiction #Academic perspectives and projects contains the sentences

Specifically, in the humanities collaborative authorship has been frowned upon in favor of the individual author. In these instances, antiquated ideas of individual genius influence how scholars look at issues of attribution and tenure.

"Antiquated ideas of individual genius" is certainly not neutral; it seems to be expressing an opinion stated in the cited source.

--Thnidu (talk) 14:07, 14 July 2016 (UTC)