Talk:Twitterature

PROD per WP:NOTDICTIONARY

I've flagged this (about 8 hours ago, mind) for uncontroversial deletion per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. I would have flagged it CSD-G3/A11, however because there's one source it removes the "unambiguous" part of the CSD guidelines. If someone does remove the PROD tag, I'd appreciate if they would state their reasoning behind it here, then pop me a talkback under a new section (Pre-filled template: {{Talkback|Wikipedia talk:Twitterature|ts=~~~~~}} ) on my talkpage. Thanks. -G.A.WILMBROKE [ USER / ALT / TALK / CONTRIBS ] 05:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Improving the section of "History"

Hello, everyone. I am the IS graduate student in University of Pittsburgh. I enrolled the class Social Computing this semester. Right now I wanna to improve the article in order to make the article more sufficient. First of all, I decide to edit the"history" section. In the past 3 or 4years , there were a lot of information about twitterature that should be introduced, The present contents contain only minor information about the development of twitterature.Evanwt (talk) 20:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Evanwt, considering the six main criterias for a good article in Wikipedia, is there any other changes you have in mind ? I was thinking about exploring how microblogging actually affected the literature of each language, e.g. we use acronym instead of the word itself to be able to say what we want in 140 characters, and how using this acronym is now a part of our daily speech and literature. But I am not sure if it is relevant or not.--SethSrcho (talk) 20:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)--SethSrcho (talk) 23:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, please post your comments and messages on "Twitterature" talk page, not my talk page. Thank you --SethSrcho (talk) 23:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Just one comment for talk page, please use ":" when you reply to each talk. I made changes for your discussion. :) Pittsburgher2015 (talk) 23:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, I will discuss the topics here later. Evanwt (talk) 19:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Editing the "Further reading" section

Hello again, I am a graduate student of Information Science and as a part of Social Computing class, I will improve this article. I noticed that the "Further reading" part has clean up banners. I will try to edit that. Also, this is my second post on this talk page, since the first one was accidentally removed by another user. --SethSrcho (talk) 19:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello SethSrcho, it seems that this article is not so popular at the moment, so improving further reading section is a great idea. What I did is to use Google Trend, and find out the articles identified during the peak of the topic popularity. Can you also let me know if you find any good sources which includes the paragraphs where I can improve the definition? I want to addd more "humorous" motivation for Twitterature. Pittsburgher2015 (talk) 23:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello SethSrcho and Pittsburgher2015. Through my investigation, I have 2 interesting observationes about Twitterature:

1. Numbered list item Twitterature reaches its most popularity from Jul,2009--May,2010 and continued declining since then. From Apr, 2013 until now, Twitterature is seldomed used accoring to the result of "Google Trend".
2. Numbered list item Compared with other social media such as facebook, google+, instagram and Linkedin, we can get far more results on Twitter, according to th result of "Social Searcher".
   

Based on above 2 points, my conjection is: "Twitterature" is a more popular and often used word at twitter compared with other social platforms and its most popular period is from 2009 to 2010. In another word, we could not see it often any more even at twitter.DABAIJING (talk) 03:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I totally agree with the idea of Pittsburgher2015, cuz this passage is not popular and the contents is not sufficient. We need to make supplement on the section that already existed. And As I said the history section contains too little information, in the past few years, twitterature has developed greatly, the twitter users have enlarged greatly, there should be more information to describe it in detail.Evanwt (talk) 18:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

By the way, do you have any sources that can be recommended for me ? I wanna to refill the section of history. Evanwt (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

References

Editing the "Definition/Title" section

Hello everyone. I am taking the Social Computing Class in University of Pittsburgh. I would like to improve the definition and add more information in the first section (the right below the title). If I use information from external sources not mentioned in the references, I will also add the references. Pittsburgher2015 (talk) 21:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Structure of "Type" section

I think the type section is not structured well. The first type is written as bullet points, the second type is mixed with bullet points and text without bullet points. The last type is only text. I would propose to have a consistent structure to have 1) overview of the type 2) examples for twitterature for the type. What would you guys think of my suggestion? Pittsburgher2015 (talk) 23:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I think your idea is rorrect and my proposal is below. If you have any comment, plz let me know. Thanks 「DABAIJING (talk) 02:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)」

I also agree with you. Putting the "Type" section in a consistant format is a good idea. What this article lacks is using various examples from different types of "Twitterature. --SethSrcho (talk) 02:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I also agree with you. The format is not regular so it looks like a little bit messy. You could make it more clear. Evanwt (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Editing the "Types" section

Hello everyone. I am also taking the Social Computing Class at University of Pittsburgh. I would like to modify "Types" section. From my preliminary investigation, i think it would be better to change main types as "fiction" and "Non-fiction". For the "Fiction" part, we will put "Twitter relays" and "Twitter poetry". "Fan fiction" and "Literary classics" will be categorized into "Fiction" part. The benefit of this reconstruction is user could unerstand easily about "Twitterature" from the point of its content type. Current structure such as "short texts" maybe confusing than a well-structure organization.

Hello DABAIJING, as I said in the last talk, I think categorizing the types is really a good idea. Maybe for each category we can add one or two example from different language.--SethSrcho (talk) 02:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello SethSrcho.Thanks for you suggestion. I think i can do some work about adding chinese edition.--DABAIJING (talk) 03:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

SethSrcho and Pittsburgher2015. A little detail about restructure, i think we can move "Micro-short stories" from original "Short texts" into "Fiction" part because its content is more related with fiction. DABAIJING (talk) 03:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I think now you are talking about the genre, rather than the type. In my opinion, types are more related to how they post the twitterature while genre addresses the content types (similarly how we classify all books.) What do you think, DABAIJING? (Just unrelated note, let's use ":" properly so that we can follow up discussion easily. :) I made a change on your previous discussion.) Pittsburgher2015 (talk) 06:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

There are some interesting websites that have examples also. --SethSrcho (talk) 04:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, DABAIJING, I think we should add the key words of each example in Types with "bold and bullet points", since right now it is hard to identify each example of the "Types" clearly.Evanwt (talk) 22:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

References

Adding images to make the concepts more easy to understand.

Based on the good article criteria on wikipedia, we should add some images to help explaining multiple of concepts Eg. What's the twitterature is? We can add some screen shot of tweets that are relevant to it from twitter. Do you guys agree with me? Evanwt (talk) 20:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

You are right.I know there are several books concerned about "Twitterature"published before. — DABAIJING (talk 21:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure if we are allowed to add screenshots, as they do not have any original source. Please correct me if I am mistaken. --SethSrcho (talk) 23:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

To SethSrcho. Well I think we could provide the url of the twitter userpage, and can it be reserved as the original source? Any ideas?Evanwt (talk) 00:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

If there is someway that we can extract the tweet and put it on this article, that seems ok. But I am not sure about the screenshots.--SethSrcho (talk) 04:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Do this means we do not need get any permittion from those tweet authors?DABAIJING (talk) 21:11, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

References

Taking the next step

Guys, let's summarize our plan for improving the article.'

I will edit the clean up banners in the "Further reading" section. Also will help editing the Types section in a way that it will cover a broader range of different types of "Twitterature" and examples. I will find good examples to add to this section. Also, I will add any external references that I will use, and if I find any interesting papers or articles about "Twitterature", I will add them to "Further readings" section. --SethSrcho (talk) 05:00, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

First, I will work on the improvement of the definition of the twitter. I don't see any further comments on my suggestion. Please add comments if you agree or not. Second, I will propose the structure of the type. Third, any new reference are used in the definition, I will add them to the external reference section. Pittsburgher2015 (talk) 21:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

First, I will work on the improvement of the history introduction, since in the past 2 or 3 years, there were lots of things happened about twitterature. Second, I will add some images about twitterature based the good article criteria. Evanwt (talk) 01:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

OK,guys, I will work on the following aspects

1. add an image in the introduction
2. revise the types part and reorganize the structure to make it more clear.DABAIJING (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, what you have done is great, the image you posted on it is appropriate, and I just want to post the same images with you, cuz you posted them prior to me, so I do not need to do it again! thanks!

The structure you oragnized is correct and appropriate. Evanwt (talk) 09:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh no, the images that you posted were deleted by the administrator, due to the copyright violation! so worried to see that! Evanwt (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Em... I just mentioned that I found them through google without authorize from their author. Unless we use our own works.DABAIJING (talk) 20:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, the reference 24 that you posted missed title parameter, I help you to fix it. Evanwt (talk) 21:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I will work on the following aspects

1. add some information in the history section
2. add a new section called story about twitterature — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evanwt (talk • contribs) 07:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Reorganize

Hey, guys. I have recongrized intro and content parts.Firstly I add content which are common in all kinds of Twitterature into introduction. Second, I classify Twitterature types based on their literature content which is more clear for readers.Thirdly, I add one specific image for 3 main types of Twitterature and 1 example for introduction part. DABAIJING (talk) 00:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Optimizing the essay

Hey,guys. I initially decided to add some images and modify the history sections, since DABAIJING have added some images, which is pretty good, so I do not need to add more, and during the process of searching the information about the history, I found some interesting story about twitterature, so I added it for a new section. Evanwt (talk) 05:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Well , one of the reference items that I posted is duplicated, I do not know how to merge them to just one item, can anyone else help me to solve it ? (reference 19 and 20) ,thanks! Evanwt (talk) 09:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, I fixed it. Pittsburgher2015 (talk) 19:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Twitter Fiction Festival

I add a content about Twitter Fiction Festival into the main part to dispaly those Twitterature fans activities.DABAIJING (talk) 21:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

editing clean up banners and adding examples

So, what I did was editing the further reading section, adding title for the articles and deleting the references to non existing Wikipedia pages. Also, in Types section, I added an example for Aphorism. The reference is also added in the references section. SethSrcho (talk) 23:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

You did really good job, thank you.DABAIJING (talk) 02:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I also add the Twitterature: The World’s Greatest Books Retold Through Twitter book to Further reading section, which seems to be a very popular book about twitterature. SethSrcho (talk) 04:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

As my last changes, I referenced "the Association of American Publishers" and "Penguin Random House" to their Wikipedia article pages. SethSrcho (talk) 04:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to split out Weird Twitter again

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus to split. Felix QW (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

---

Formal request has been received by PK-WIKI to split Twitterature into Twitterature and Weird Twitter again. Rationale given by proposer: The "Weird Twitter" standalone article was merged in 2016, but would by now seem to clearly meet GNG. "Twitterature" is also a bad and mostly unrelated merge destination. Please discuss the page split below. Felix QW (talk) 20:08, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support split A Google Scholar search for "weird twitter" shows plenty of scholarly articles about the phenomenon, so it's clearly notable - and it's not really the same thing as twitterature. Lijil (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.