Jump to content

Talk:Firekind

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Avatar

[edit]

Nothing that has been said at the Avatar talk page explains the removal of the information in this article about the similarities between the two stories. Please explain. Richard75 (talk) 07:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC). PS: These are the sources in question: [1][2][3][4][reply]

  1. ^ Lazer, Eddie (January 28, 2010). "Did Avatar Completely Rip Off An Obscure British Comic Called Firekind?". Heavy.com. Retrieved October 13, 2013. (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/6KLWgVANP)
  2. ^ Goellner, Caleb (29 January, 2010). "Is Avatar a rip-off of 2000AD's 1993 story Firekind?". Comics Alliance. Retrieved 13 October 2013. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  3. ^ Lazer, Eddie (29 January 2010). "Avatargate: The Case for the Prosecution". Heavy.com. Retrieved 13 October 2013.
  4. ^ Anders, Charlie (11 February 2010). "The Complete List of Sources Avatar's Accused of Ripping Off". io9. Retrieved 13 October 2013.
I thought my explanation was quite clear. These internet fanzines are two a penny, and just because something is written on the internet doesn't automatically mean we should include it in our articles. What makes this reviewer's commentary noteworthy? Why is his opinion of the film important enough to document in this article? Is there any secondary coverage of his criticism to establish what sort of esteem it is held in? In short, why should I or any reader of this article care what this guy thinks? Ultimately this writer comes across as a non-notable reviewer working for fringe fanzine and I don't think that sort of criticism is adequate for an enyclopedia. Prove to me that other people and publications consider his opinion important and I will withdraw my objection to its inclusion. Betty Logan (talk) 12:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much that your explanation was unclear, as that it only relates to the Avatar article. I can see how, in a large section about critical reviews of a film, not every review needs to be included, for reasons of space, and so consequently more notable reviewers are more likely to be worthy of inclusion than the less notable ones. But this article isn't about Avatar, it's about Firekind. Apart from the fact that there isn't a massive section here about what reviewers have said about it which has got to be kept down to a manageable size (as may be the case with the other article), the relevance to this article of a review which discusses Avatar is not simply to report what somebody once said about Avatar -- it's to be a source for the demonstrable similarity between the comic and the film, which is obviously of much greater significance to this article than the other. The people who own the rights to Firekind could never sell the movie rights to "Firekind: The Movie," because everyone would say "but James Cameron already made that movie." It has a different purpose here to the one it served on the Avatar article. Richard75 (talk) 15:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable criticism is non-notable criticism regardless of the article on which it resides. To draw an analogy, the opinion of an academic who publishes a paper on something is only notable if his peers regard his opinion as important and refer to his work. If his opinion is important then at least one other writer/publication will most likely have referred to his writings at some point, so that is all I am asking for: some evidence that this person's viewpoint is noteworthy. One standard for this as I pointed out at Talk:Avatar (2009 film)#Fringe "rip-off" reviews would be an independent aggregator such as Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic using his review to compile their score: that would assign some third party value to his opinion. At the moment this just looks like one of many writers working for one of many fringe fanzines that have proliferated on the web, and I don't see any justifiable reason for elevating his opinion beyond all the others out there. Betty Logan (talk) 16:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comics Alliance and io9 cited him here and here respectively. Richard75 (talk) 16:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, those are the same type of fringe publications. The sort of thing we are looking for is books and mainstream media, not fringe stuff. If a publication like Variety or a book published by a reputable publisher or mainstream newspaper or magazine like The New York Times regarded the reviewer as a credible reviewer then that would carry some weight, but fringe opinion doesn't belong on Wikipedia. This sort of stuff would be better put on a fan wiki. Betty Logan (talk) 17:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(1) You keep talking about the notability of the reviewer, but that is only relevant if we are including his review for its own sake, such as in a list of what various reviewers have said, i.e. in the Criticism section of an article about a film. If the review is only being relied on as evidence for something other than the review's own existence, then a "fringe" review can still be a reliable source for the purposes of verifiability. (2) The review is on Heavy.com, which I suggest is a mainstream site: see its Wikipedia article and its high Alexa rating. (The source is the website rather than the individual writing on the website.) Richard75 (talk) 11:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a week: I have requested others' views on this at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Richard75 (talk) 18:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added one sentence. I don't see how anyone would object to pointing out there are similarities. Is this pointed out in the Avator article? This seems non-controversial at least to me. For example, Microsoft's Windows copied Apple's operating system. QuackGuru (talk) 17:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Firekind. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 00:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Firekind&oldid=1198355643"