User talk:Seraphimblade/sandbox2/2

Discussion

I am offended by your quotation of my word usage to claim that I am a supporter of having fancruft in articles (which is ironic, because I'm a member of numerous anticruft projects). There is a difference between covering every in-universe aspect of a topic in exausting detail and succinctly covering all aspects of a topic. The use of the word comprehensiveness in the subarticle page still stands, and what I was stating was logical reasoning; of course a subarticle will have less out-of-universe importance than its parent topic, so it should not be expected to have the same level of out of universe information. — Deckill er 02:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I quote you? I'm sorry if you took offense, certainly nothing was intended that way? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 03:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the use of the word "comprehensiveness" immediately after the discussion on the article inclusion page. Anyway, my point is that there is a difference between covering a topic comprehensively and covering a topic overly comprehensively. After all, wiktionary itself states that comprehensive can mean a broad coverage. The reason I brought the subarticle idea up is that sometimes, articles get too long because a lot of information must be covered to mention all major aspects. That is why subarticles are created, so that the main page is not excessively long. However, the page should not be so long in the first place if it cannot be attributed outside of the primary source. For example, the Final Fantasy series consists of numerous games, so a broad overview of the gameplay would be somewhat wordy. That is why so many subarticles have been created, and one of my tasks is to consolidate those subarticles into one or two. This strengthens the material by making it more concise, less crufty, and with a greater potential for attribution and out of universe material. However, having no subarticle at all would either result in the main page becoming excessively long, or major points being left out.

I really like this Wikibooks idea you're forging, though. It is a solid compromise, because it does not purge people's contributions on Wikipedia out of existence, and it allows us to bridge the two projects together. Pages like List of terms in Xenosaga and related lists can be transwikified to Wikibooks, and a subarticle can be made to succinctly cover the in-universe aspects on Wikipedia with details on how the developers were inspired, how the plot has inspired others, and so on. — Deckill er 03:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Please feel free to hack away at it if you'd like. I do see your point on subarticles though-perhaps, rather than having tons of articles, a subarticle such as "List of characters in Title" could be used? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 03:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; the Final Fantasy WikiProject (or, rather, the ones who can understand attribution and WAF) understand the need to have a few substantial articles rather than a bunch of articles on tiny subjects that will get inflated with excessive plot summary. Right now, our lists of characters focus too much on minor characters, leaving people to think that major characters should have every little detail discussed about them. For example, articles like Quistis Trepe should be merged into the List of Final Fantasy VIII characters (or, more appropriate, Characters in Final Fantasy VIII), becuase there is not enough true out of universe information (outside of developers info and maybe some popularity polls) to really warrent a full article. As a whole, the list shows that the characters of Final Fantasy VIII have been discussed by outside sources, have appeared in other games/works, and some have been seen as popular by polls and studies.

Articles like Final Fantasy weapons and armor and Airship (Final Fantasy) definitely need to be transwikied. I've been arguing that we only need 1-2 paragraphs explaining how equipment is significant to gameplay throughout the series, and examples of how real-life sources influenced the weapons and armor, but nothing more.

As to Final Fantasy, or any other popular series, I don't see a ton of problem having individual articles on each game, as certainly each individual one receives plenty of reviews and media attention to merit that. My main problem is with articles on each character out of a game, that seems to get a bit excessive. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 03:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; each game has its own article, and many have become featured articles (the project's goal is to elevate every related article to GA or FA, which will force people to gague what truly is substantial enough to warrent a full article). I can understand an article on the primary protagonist and antagonist of each game (as long as there is information outside of just plot summary), but to have an article for each individual playable character (and even beyond) is too much. And in a lot of ways, it can become redundant; a lot of character articles just rehash the plot from a character's point of view, when they should provide examples of major events with the character (such as a self sacrifice, a background event revealed, or a major decision made by the character).

I think a lot of the defensiveness over cruft articles comes with personal satisfaction; these users feel that they worked hard on an article, and they feel they should be reconized for their editing. Transwiking to Wikibooks with a interwiki redirect provides them with that proof while maintaining their work somewhere. — Deckill er 03:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly my intent here. Some of those really are well-written, and I'd hate to see them gone entirely, but at the same time, I certainly understand (and largely share) the concerns of those that think they're not encyclopedic. I'm hoping this will be a reasonable compromise for both sides-not gone, not even merged with some lost, just moved to a little more appropriate place. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 03:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a fair compromise, although there may still be a need to merge some details into a wikipedia article while the transwiki takes place. I think the only major issue is fiction redirects. Perhaps "see also" links would help, or we can use "____ on Wikibooks" templates. Ah, never mind, I misread the procedures section. — Deckill er 03:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The merging is a good point, added in a couple lines on that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 03:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We could probably use Star Wars vehicles as a good test subject; a Wikibooks on Star Wars vehicles will allow us to get rid of a lot of those endless lists. I think character lists are okay as mentioned above, as long as they cover all available out of universe information for those characters and focus on primary characters. Such coverage is not something a list of vehicles can accomplish, although specific vehicles, like TIE Fighter and Star Destroyer, should have enough available.

We can also leave comments on user talkpages about how their article did not show enough out-of-universe significance or material, so it was moved to Wikibooks. 04:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea, since a lot of those lists and crufty articles are really well writen, but don't belong on this project since it follows tight, encyclopedic content. But putting it on Wikibooks puts them in a place where extensive character and in-universe stuff is acceptable. Darth griz⁹⁸ 04:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The thing I'm a little worried about is if Wikibooks isn't flexible with us. When we transwiki the information, it will take time to be placed into the more correct format over there, which is something we will not have the time to do (since we're focused on Wikipedia). Perhaps StrategyWiki is another option? — Deckill er 04:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strategywiki may be another option, but that would probably apply only to video games, where Wikibooks could be used more generally for games, TV shows, books, movies, etc., etc.... With Wikibooks, though, if this appears likely to gain consensus, I would probably notify them over there as well. If they wouldn't be glad to have an influx of contributors and material...well, then, I don't know what to say! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 04:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking of a good way to solve the StarWars-cruft; we can take those huge lists and turn them into external link banks to their respective Wookieepedia page. Or even just a general article for "Vehicles in Star Wars" (with subarticles if necessary), and an external link to vehicle categories on Wookieepedia. That might go against current policy, but it's an option that can gain consesus while keeping with this compromise approach.

Building on Deckiller's idea, couldn't the cruft lists be moved to the specific Wikis like Wookieepedia? I'm sure the other topics have Wikis too. Darth griz⁹⁸ 04:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah; pretty much every fictional topic has a Wikia, even 24. That provides us with the ultimate way to compromise. — Deckill er 04:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why couldn't we do both? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 04:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, both would be a good option as well; that way, both the wikia and the wikibooks projects can work with the material how they see fit. — Deckill er 04:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My other thought there is, a specific Wikia likely already has an article on a specific fictional character, if it's specific to that work of fiction. (Of course, if we can work out arrangements with them to "dump" stuff over there and let them take whatever they like, great.) However, Wikibooks has a couple benefits: Since Wikibooks is a Wikimedia project, we already have a transfer arrangement with them (the transwiki process), and on the vast majority of subjects we'd be doing this for, they don't have a book at all, so we'd be able to preserve the whole thing when transferring over there. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 04:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And it can be reformed over time to conform to their policies. My fear is that Wikibooks might not accept such a mass migration though, so perhaps an agreement can be made where the topics have a "ticking time bomb"; say, if the topic doesn't conform to Wikibooks in a year, then it's deleted and only preserved on relevant wikias. — Deckill er 04:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A question

How is this not covered elsehwere? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FICT mentions it in passing, but doesn't really explain the process or when to do it. I very much doubt most people even know how to do an interwiki, so I don't think an explanation and more detailed guideline as to when to do it and what for can hurt. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 14:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, this can serve as an active "call to action". If we name this page Properly Dealing with Fiction or something like that, and it becomes a policy, it will catch a lot of eyes. This could be the start to the fair solution we've been looking for. — Deckill er 16:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]