Talk:Aurora in Four Voices

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

Article issues[edit]

I added the Template:Allplot, since the article inarguably has that problem but was reverted diff edit summary: "Remove allplot template. the frst paragraph, which is a substantial part of this article, is about the novel." The comment appears to indicate some confusion about what Allplot is, so see that page. Another tag could do in its place, such as Template:primarysources, which is largely analogous in this case. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 16:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The {{All plot}} template starts "This article consists almost entirely of a plot summary". That is not true of this article. I noticed you are on a sprey of adding that template to a lot of articles (some 10 in my watchlist alone), but those I have not reverted, since you are mostly right. In this case you are not. Debresser (talk) 21:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not almost entirely a plot summary? What facts establish that it is it not? Besides the plot summary, there's the awards I added (you're welcome) and the character listing is more plot summary than not, also drawing on the primary source alone. What is patronizing about what I wrote above or what I wrote in the edit summary in the articlespace that allplot "was in fact appropriate, but I won't stubbornly insist on it"? That, and my not adding additional templates which also apply, strikes me as more in the nature of being productive and accommodating...? (I.e. you wrote diff edit summary: "Reply with facts to condescending commentary"... which is itself condescending, is it not?) If you'd prefer to substitute primarysources for allplot to the ones that in your opinion are not almost entirely plot summary, I don't have a big issue with that. However, removing the template and leaving it without one, or to call its application to others a "spree" (an "uninhibited activity") is seemingly to deny that any issues exist and to also implicitly suggest that tagging articles is an activity that should be inhibited, i.e. made difficult or restricted (by whom? by you?), which is somewhat problematic. (You failed to note I also went on a somewhat gnomish "spree" of adding infoboxes and awards to novels with a good reference complete with an archived link I had to create at WebCite, the referenced awards helping indicate notability; again, you're welcome.) Templates such as allplot aren't meant to be destructive or punitive, but to constructively draw attention to issues and the application of the template may attract new editors who may be able to address those issues if none of the editors who have already been involved have the ability or inclination to do so, as seems to be the case here. Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels has a lot of resources that may be useful in improving the article. Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/ArticleTemplate in particular may be helpful. However, the main issue here is a need for reputable, relevant third-party references. I looked; it seems that these may not exist online (but people are welcome to try to Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL; it's always possible some have recently appeared). Given that, possibly a reference librarian could assist in locating ones offline, which sources could then be acquired by interlibrary loan if need be. The Novels WPP or the SciFi one (a child of Novels, thus adding Novels could be redundant, so I didn't) might also be of assistance if their help is actively sought. Adding the WPP template here as I did may attract further editors, albeit more passively. Maybe an Asaro or SotSE WPP could be created, but I don't think there'd be enough editors to sustain that separately from the SF one the way there is for ST, SW, etc. I'm not proposing an AfD on this article. My own inclination is that it would be better handled in a single series article in the absence of third-party sources, but I don't feel strongly enough about that to actively propose or do a merger. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 22:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to read all of this. In the first line you ask a question. the answer is: because the first paragraph does not talk about the plot, and brings sources. Debresser (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a disinterested third party, I would agree with Debrasser that {{allplot}} is not really applicable to this article. It isn't entirely plot, or even 75% plot going on a rough guess. At best, it might warrant {{plot}} but not {{allplot}}. It may warrant a merge to a single series article, but I think that would be a separate discussion. As a side note, I believe the use of WebCite was discouraged because well meaning Wikipedia editors accidentally killed the site last year from using it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Films WPPer! I'm not sure why Debresser canvassed specifically your help in explaining his position?diff While that doesn't make you a disinterested WP:Third opinion in the conventional sense, I do appreciate your relatively neutral response, even though I disagree with it. Given that it was not a very big disagreement, I'm not sure why anyone else needed to be brought in anyway. Not sure why we're still discussing the somewhat misleadingly-named allplot either, since I indicated I wouldn't insist on it. Nor am I proposing merging all the novel articles. Nor am I sure why 500 words or so aimed at being helpful would result in the too long;didn't read response by Debresser above; other aspects of his response puzzle me as well, but perhaps don't merit pursuing. Regarding WebCite, I was trying to maximize the value of the reference; it's mentioned and/or recommended in Template:Cite web, WP:Linkrot and Wikipedia:Using WebCite and was recently publicized in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-11-23/News and notes. If there was a discussion about discouraging it in the intervening six weeks, possibly it did not result in taking the position that it should be discouraged, or if it did, not all pages kept pace with that. Do you recall where the discussion was? Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 02:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He didn't canvas, he asked a disinterested party for a third opinion, one he, I presume, felt would offer a neutral opinion rather than just agreeing with him, particularly when I tend to plot tag articles frequently. For the discouraging of WebCite, it was several months ago, if some new essays have come out since, its possible WebCite can now handle it. Looking further, it appears there is now a bot to do it. From its page, the problems occurred in June and July, but appear to now be resolved, so looks like that is a non-issue now. Good to know...though feel sorry for that poor bot :-P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, informing someone is supposed to be more neutrally-worded than "I'm having trouble explaining something," which implicitly asks that you help explain the same thing. People who are good to inform are all interested parties (prior editors of the article, and not selectively) or experts. I was wondering if you were the latter. However, per 3rdP it's undesirable to seek a 3rd opinion from someone you've had prior dealings with, even if they do not always agree with you. It may have been better to mention that your input had been solicited as well. But anyway, you otherwise handled it well: no matter. Regarding the Novels WPP, I wasn't sure if since SF is a descendant of it whether perhaps the article is automatically already included in Novels by being included in SF. There is actually also a Novels SF task force, which can be added with the line "sf-task-force=yes". Not sure why there is both a SFWPP and a NovelsWPPSFTF, but that question is probably addressed by them somewhere. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 03:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Aurora in Four Voices. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 17:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aurora_in_Four_Voices&oldid=1205498742"