Talk:Plot generator

This page was proposed for deletion by 67.14.236.50 (talk · contribs) on 18 February 2016.
It was contested by RL0919 (talk · contribs) on 2016-02-23

Split

Two plot generator sites:

Seventh Sanctum www.seventhsanctum.com

Serendipity www.nine.frenchboys.net

And, based on the Evil Overlord Lists

http://nielsenhayden.com/overlord/

This page is clearly talking about two very different topics, and should be split and disambiguated 64.81.62.48 01:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the incoming links for this article were to the plot device, so I split off Random plot generator to its own article. Just two articles doesn't require a disambiguation page, but I did hatnote both of them. Unfortunately all the references were for the part that was split off, so this is now an unreferenced stub. --RL0919 (talk) 02:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete?

This article seems to be entirely unsupported, and pretty poorly written—“fictional plot device,” for instance, when a plot device is an element of fiction. Is there any reason it shouldn’t go to WP:AFD? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:26, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I’ll just WP:PROD it. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:26, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given the number and variety of plot generators the topic meets WP's notability criteria - so add to the rewrite list. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jackiespeel: Prevalent and notable really aren’t the same thing, especially in the Wikipedia sense. Has there ever been any substantial coverage in reliable sources? Or is it just a thing that viewers of various TV shows have recognized as a trope? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are actually two distinct senses of 'plot generator' - that described here, referring to particular TV series, and that described under 'random plot generator' (which also has a deletion query).
Perhaps the two articles can be subsections of the same article? Jackiespeel (talk) 23:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jackiespeel: I doubt it; they don’t seem to have any relation. One’s an online tool/toy, and the other is a form of plot device. What common subject could they fall under that satisfies WP:N? But they could certainly be discussed in, e.g., an article broadly about novelty web applications (I don’t think we have any) and an article broadly about plot devices. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exploring the terminological possibilities - but, looking at the examples given would not 'standard framing structure/formula' (or a more elegant term) be equally appropriate in this case - the Colombo TV films and the series Death in Paradise would be other examples of this type. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We don’t need examples from original research. We need coverage—reliable sources that talk about the actual structure. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 13:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The question is - in how many of the examples given is 'the device' (tree, stargate etc) providing an 'episode frame' and in how many cases is 'the device' actually generating the plot ('if we go along this branch/set the coordinates thus etc that happens'). If the former, this becomes a subsection of the fiction/TV series entries, if the latter then the material here can be developed as a standalone article. Jackiespeel (talk) 13:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:No original research. We cannot answer the question you’re posing. We may only cite reliable sources who do. And the only way we could write anything about anything generating plot is if we find reliable sources discussing the practice, not just practicing it. Also, it would be rather difficult to build an encyclopedic article around a subject’s mere existence. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:25, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(reset) IP - what I am suggesting is not OR but a way of deciding whether it is a standalone topic or a subsection of another article. Jackiespeel (talk) 11:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for misunderstanding. I don’t see how it could work as a subsection for every series that uses it, if that’s what you’re saying. I don’t think we do that for any kind of narrative element, do we? If we have an article about similar tropes in general, it could be a subsection of that. Whether it should be a standalone article would depend on whether we have enough material from sources about its history, advantages and disadvantages, criticism, etc., not on how widely used it is in popular culture. In any case, with no sources, there’s not really a place on Wikipedia for it, and this whole discussion seems rather hypothetical. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 15:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If things can be misunderstood, they will be - especially if it involves computers. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackiespeel (talk • contribs) 23:42, 20 February 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

How many 'short stories and TV programs' have 'a standardized format' (which is what this article appears to talk about) - and what proportion of users of the term 'plot generator' would understand it in the sense of random plot generator - which is what 'a well known websearch engine' takes it to mean. Jackiespeel (talk) 23:42, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To your first question: It’s not a “standardized format.” Star Trek: The Next Generation, for instance, is alleged to have a “plot generator” in the form of the spaceship’s holodecks. The writers used them in that way in only a handful of episodes.

To the second: Are you asking which subject is the primary topic? Frankly, that doesn’t matter if one or both subjects don’t belong in Wikipedia. And they don’t belong in Wikipedia if we can’t cite sources that talk about them (meaning they are not notable). —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To varying extents websearch results #do# reflect what those doing the searches think are the 'right' answers/what they are looking for. As 'plot generator' appears to be equivalent to 'random plot generator' one can probably assume 'vox populi vox Wikipedia.'

Is 'plot generator' in the sense used of this article a variety of McGuffin?

Would you agree we are defining the definition/concept rather than disagreeing? Jackiespeel (talk) 11:22, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I’m saying is it doesn’t matter whether readers are looking for A or B if neither A nor B has a Wikipedia article. There is no primary topic. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are 'many, many random plot generators' - so a brief description of what they are and how they work should appear on WP either as a separate article or as a subsection of an article on another topic. With two different browsers 'plot generators' appears to be a synonym for 'random plot generator' - and what is described in this article appears to be more of a 'standard framework for presenting an episode/story.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackiespeel (talk • contribs) 22:59, 21 February 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

Only if sources are available, as required by WP:N and WP:V. It doesn’t matter how many there are or how popular they are if there are no reliable sources, because then we don’t have anything to write about them. That is the foundation of WIkipedia. And we don’t even have a source for the “standard framework” (a description which I disagree with, but that’s moot without sources). —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Random plot generators' exist in large numbers as any websearch will show - so WP should have something about them, whether as an article or as a subsection of another article. Websearching 'Research into random plot generators' gives a number of articles at various levels - would [1] be sufficiently rigorous? Jackiespeel (talk) 10:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not saying they don’t exist. No one is saying they don’t exist. I’m saying WP:POPULARITY doesn’t matter because we cite zero reliable sources that discuss them in their computerized form, and so Wikipedia (per WP:Verifiability) should avoid saying anything about them. Also, that is not the subject of this article, so I’m not sure why you’re asking about them here rather than there. This article is about an element of fiction, not a method of creating it; please try to keep discussion relevant.

But to answer your question, academic papers are considered reliable sources as long as they can be shown to have been peer-reviewed, usually by being published in a peer-reviewed journal. I can’t tell from your link whether this is the case. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the main page of the article's website [2] it appears to be suitably reputable, and there are probably more such (as well as more popular articles) if people will chase them up: given the quantity of RPGs and the articles a WP article or subsection is justifiable - but for this particular article less so (as for the examples given a variant on 'Once upon a time in the X universe X went along a branch or through the Stargate etc.'

Can the discussion be continued under my sentence below (as 'enough colons to restart'). Jackiespeel (talk) 10:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Basically - if both this and the RPG articles were deleted the latter would be recreated at some point by some or several persons - but would this article be? Jackiespeel (talk) 22:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Once again: The quantity of generators is completely irrelevant. Please stop bringing it up.

If you can find reliable sources about this, that, or really any subject, and use them to write a quality article with verifiable in-depth discussion, then please do so. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 12:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are two completely different topics here - the subject of this article (for which there does seem to be little if any background reference) and the RPG one (for which there is some background).

I contributed to this topic three years ago and I am now developing other things. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No… there is one topic here, and there is another topic at a different article. This article is completely unrelated to the academic paper you linked to earlier. You’re at the wrong Talk page for the topic you’re discussing. I suggest moving the discussion to Talk:Story generator (previously Talk:Random plot generator) and keeping it there. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I was last involved here some years ago - and I was defining what this topic is not.
The question is - would someone looking up 'what is a plot generator' be thinking of the subject of this article - and what is the question for which this article is a possible answer to? Jackiespeel (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jackiespeel: No, that is not the question. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is only a factor when there are multiple eligible subjects with similar names. As far as I’ve been able to tell, this subject is not eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia because it completely fails to meet WP:GNG. Could someone submit this to WP:AFD? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(reset) Why are you continuing this discussion? The article is now completely meaningless - when before it gave some examples even if not an obvious use of the term. I have given my opinion several times and do not care to repeat it. Jackiespeel (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It honestly sounds like you don’t understand this project’s core policies. Examples provided by original research are not acceptable. If an article is “completely meaningless” when unencyclopedic content is removed, doesn’t that mean the article shouldn’t be on Wikipedia in the first place? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 15:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IP I do understand WP' purposes - and since when does 'a simple websearch' constitute Original Research rather than showing what people #think# the term means (as they select the relevant answers to the question 'what is X').
As the discussion was about the previous version of the article, of which large quantities have been deleted in the interim, there is no point in continuing this discussion. Delete it if you want, turn it into redirects to relevant (subsections of other) pages or whatever. Jackiespeel (talk) 22:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think a page of search results has ever been accepted as a reliable source for anything. But the original research I was referring to was the list of examples I’ve deleted, such as “The TARDIS in Doctor Who is a plot generator because it generates plot.^{[citation needed]}” They were entirely unsourced, as if they’d come from a WP editor’s own observations. Hence, original research.

If you agree that the article doesn’t belong here, I think redirection would be appropriate. (And if you’ve been saying this whole time that we need to decide on a redirect target, I’m sorry for completely misunderstanding you.) We should probably check with @RL0919 first since he contested the deletion. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is strong enough to accommodate different approaches - and there are going to be discussions on distinguishing 'similarly named topics' (cricket and Trobriand Island cricket).

Web searches do 'prove something' - what people are interested in/think are the most likely articles.Anyone can do the same searches I did with the same results - and there is enough material to justify 'some description somewhere' on Wikipedia (even if it is '(random) plot generators exist - here are some examples and some formal articles' and 'some types of story series have a common framework' - which appears to be what this article previously said).

As I was last involved in the topic several years ago I am at best an interested observer. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But we can’t write an article (or even a sentence) based on a web search or personal observations. We need reliable sources. If there are none, or if they’re scarce, the subject is not notable enough to have an article here. I urge you to read WP:N and WP:V. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 14:46, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The original topic of #this article# was too obscure for WP: but for '(random) plot generator' a quick websearch - 49 million hits on (random) plot generator (and a number of scholarly articles with a little more searching) - so probably significant enough for at least a mention.

As I am not presently involved in this topic could #you# develop something on the other page in the discussion. Jackiespeel (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Um, this is the Talk page for this article, not that other one. And since you agree that this subject is too obscure, and since RL0919 seems to have decided not to respond here, I’m redirecting this article to Plot device. If no one finds this objectionable, please continue any discussion of this subject there—and please continue any discussion of Story generator at Talk:Story generator. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]