Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:37, 10 June 2006

List of fictional universes

Delete per nom (me). I stated my opinion concerning the usefulness of this article on its talk page first, and received only agreement on the matter. Cut and paste follows.

I hate to rain on this obsessive-compulsive parade, but couldn't this article include every work of fiction ever produced, in some form or another, especially speculative/science fiction and fantasy? It took me a moment to even think of one useful purpose such an article might serve, but there is one: to simply outline the conceptual differences between such fictions, as this does to some degree by detailing the different categories of fictional universes that can exist. There is absolutely no function served by creating a repository in which everyone can note their favorite fictional universe. Examples are useful, sure, but I think some limits should be in place. I put my opinion out tentatively--clearly someone is interested, if so much has been done here, but I think this is more a case of interest on the part of the creators than on the part of potential readers. No one can really gain any kind of knowledge from these "shout outs" to our favorite works of fiction. Fearwig 03:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I am confident that this article can serve no worthwhile purpose, and should be considered a good reminder that Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This article seems to me the very definition of indiscriminate. Fearwig 22:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep. (Please note - Fearwig "received only agreement" from one user, Peter S.) Fearwig mentions one purpose the article may serve: "to simply outline the conceptual differences between such fictions, as this does to some degree by detailing the different categories of fictional universes that can exist." Please remember that everything here is a work in progress, and per the talk page of the article in question, there are many hands and brains pondering how to make the article accessible and informative. I take exception, also, to the claim that "no one can really gain any kind of knowledge" from something, simply because one person (or two) doesn't see its wor th. As you may have already guessed, I have learned something from the article and think it should be kept. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 21:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • What exactly does the list portion of the article achieve, other than to catalogue what could conceivably be every single piece of fiction ever produced by mankind? Being that the article is a list, this should be the matter in question. Fearwig 22:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. (Please note - Fearwig "received only agreement" from one user, Peter S.) agree with pegship the everything here is a work in progress and that there is no need to delete something that could be cleaned up. --Kev62nesl 21:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I did not pretend that agreement was in abundance--only that no one cared about the article in that period of time save the one individual who agreed in its worthlessness. I am not sure why a "strong keep" would be the immediate result of the consideration that "not enough people have agreed with the deletion yet". You simply can't clean up something so conceptually flawed as a list of every fictional universe ever imagined. Fearwig 22:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I did not pretend that my "strong keep" was the "immediate result" of the number of people agreeing on deletion. (That was just a report of the facts.) It was the immediate result of believing that the article is informative and worth keeping. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 17:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• comment and keep I've added a "dynamic list" template at the top. Seems sufficient to me. --Quiddity 23:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

  There's a discussion between fearwig and myself at the talkpage here, and Her Pegship has very recently been cleaning up the list. -Quiddity 18:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep – this list (and it analysis) does provide a useful purpose. Firstly it provises a place to review the various fictional universes (and yes that will mainly mean SF and Fantasy). Secondly it provides a grouping of types, particularly for anyone wanting a read of a similar kind to one previously enjoyed or one of a dissimilar kind (for variety). This is not just a listing. All I would say is that it does need work to improve this information. :: Kevinalewis : /_(Desk) 08:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete, listing now. - Liberatore(T) 14:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Merge the information into fictional universe. Expand that article and include some of the examples from "list of" in there. I can't really see much of a point to this article. "List of" articles are almost always bad, and this is a pretty good example of Misplaced Pages turning into an indiscriminate collection of information. While you're at it, put Index of fictional places up for AFD too. - Motor (talk) 15:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Listcruft. Artw 15:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Question Listcruft? I can't find an explanation of this term, though I think I get it by context. Fearwig 20:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, listcruft. --Terence Ong 16:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as listcruft. --Rehcsif 16:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, indiscriminate and neverending list; Motor's merge proposal has some merit but I don't think it is necessary. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep and cleanup ... I could go either way on this one. It may as well be called List of Works of Fiction because any work of fiction by definition presupposes facts that didn't happen in our universe. Still, it could be made into a meaningful article if someone wanted to work on it. BigDT 18:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Going back to Fearwig's original observation, "couldn't this article include every work of fiction ever produced": yes, it could. I see your point, F, and I removed the section referencing "Earth as we know it"; such a list would be ridiculous indeed. Perhaps clarifying the parameters of the list would help -- List of alternative universes? As in, alternative = "existing outside traditional or established institutions or systems" (. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 18:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree that a more... moderate list would be within the approrpiate purpose of WP. I also agree that (if this article is deleted, as I still must believe it should be) this material should be re-used elsewhere, in producing a new but similar line of article. Fearwig 20:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, although it is terribly organized (and woefully incomplete) and desperately in need of cleanup. I see nothing "indiscriminate" about such a list, however. bikeable (talk) 19:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I think that it is incomplete is its only saving grace. That's the problem--lack of discrimination in the topic. Fearwig 01:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Though the existing information seems in desperate need of pruning and reorganising, the talk page suggests that efforts are ongoing to make it more useful, and what is there is interesting. Merging with Fictional universe would make the latter unwieldly. Espresso Addict 20:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete listcruft, unmaintainable. KillerChihuahua 21:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Rename/Cleanup into "List of Alternate Universes" per Webster, link it from fictional universe as a reference page (since being merged in toto would make fictional universe too long and unwieldy). Treat it as a sub-article to the fictional universe main by way of examples, otherwise it really is just listcruft -Markeer 21:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: and for the user who asked what listcruft meant, here you go: Misplaced Pages:Listcruft -Markeer 21:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment Wonderful, thanks. This is something of a "List of people who have ears", I must agree. Fearwig 01:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — Seems a decent start. More information than in a simple category — RJH (talk) 23:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this is what categories are for. SM247 23:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I think there is an argument for having an article on the types of fictional universe that can exist. That is, the current section organization of the article is itself of interest, though I think the list is potentially infinite and that is a serious problem. Unless the infinitude of the list is fixed I can't see a way out of deleting this article. But if the list is restricted to notable examples, and the article reviews the types and gives early and important examples, that could be worthwhile. However, I'd then suggest it be merged with the Fictional universes article. The category already exists, after all; either the list duplicates it or it supplies analysis, and I'm not sure why that analysis wouldn't belong in the Fictional universes article. Mike Christie 01:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree completely, I think the analysis (if it is in fact not OR--I'm not sure whether it's taken from secondaries) should be retained. I only suggest that this page be deleted, not the Fictional universes article (though that should perhaps be changed to Fictional universe, to meet naming conventions, if I'm not mistaken).
• Keep. This is more than just a category, although I believe the list should be restricted to notable universes only. --Bruce1ee 07:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Question Who would arbitrate that? Apparently some people think the Bernstein Bears series is set in a "notable universe". Also, are you using Wiki standards of notability, because Misplaced Pages does have well over a million articles, a great number of which are based on works of fiction (and thus set in fictional universes). Fearwig 14:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep—We'd started a lazy process of organizing a consensual method of tackling what is admittedly a daunting task, and had a general agreement on how to make the thing better. Splitting it was one initial thought, then Peg came up with the table. Agreed the scope of the beast needs narrowed, but the telling point to me is not what 'use' the article may have to someone like Ferwig, but that there had been a lot of people that put their valuable spare time into building it in the first place. That also shows a certain amount of love and care to take the effort of putting up the data in the first place; D'ya hear a winsom echo of Jimbo here—that's somewhat like the answer he gave the interviewer about what surprised him most about the encyclopedia. In sum, you need not help, but do respect the time others devoted to putting this nascent seed together. There is a fun factor to remember as well, not everything in a e-publication need be limited like a dead tree publication. Sneer at it as listcruft if you like, as I do when people go ga-ga over so called celebrity entertainers who are just doing their jobs in something they love. But you can blame those same entertainers for the population of this list. Deleting it is only consistent with a vow to be a lifelong ascetic and never ever enjoy anyform of entertainment. The converse is also true, if you are a fan of anything at all in the realm of entertainment, integrity and respect for others, and especially perhaps, respect for others donated volunteer time clearly demands it be kept — least you know yourself for a hypocrite and insensitive uncaring person. I'd rather you didn't inflict that wound on your psyche, and thought about why the list came to be in the first place! Is love and affection so unworthy so as to be unnotable on it's very existance? No, they are the most precious commodity of all. (danged edit conflict! Ferwig!)// FrankB 14:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• I have some sympathy with this view; I understand that this can be a labour of love for many editors. I'm not suggesting that the work be destroyed, but it does have to be consistent with Misplaced Pages goals. It has to be encyclopaedic. My criticism is not of the idea of documenting fictional universes within Misplaced Pages -- that's clearly within Misplaced Pages's scope. The problem is that the article, in its current form, is absolutely unmaintainable. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is a key problem for several who have voted Delete here; and it has not been addressed by the responses or the Keep votes. If this can be corrected I would be likely to vote Keep. Mike Christie 15:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• I do believe it was mentioned that several of us were addressing that... albeit on the back burner, but it wasn't undergoing consistant neglect (Consider the old saw: 'Failing to plan is a plan to fail', which goes a long way in life, and matters complicated!), as any fair reading of the talk page indicates for the last month.

Pegship, Quiddity, Heretohelp, myself, and even (the traitorous <g>) Peter S had all begun to look at it. But we all have other wikiTasks that kept us from getting down to brass tacks here or in the commons... that's gotta be something over 1000 such just this last month. So I agree the thing has big problems, but I started the ball on improving it by looking for ideas on how to procede... such is in the talk page. (Specifically: See the Motion to Revise section below for details. --FrankB 14:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC), just a month back when I went to make an add to the thing.) Being disorganized, simply by trying to parse it's organization (which seemed inconsistant), I don't believe I ever did edit in it then. Shrug... I yelled for some help and advice; we just haven't gotten to it fast enough for y'all. Shrug (<g> Care to guess 'why'??? <g>)

Now some of ya'll want to kill the item instead of improving it. Shrug. 'twould be better if we all just pitched in a half-hour a week morphing it into the table format suggested by Pegship... That cuts the redundancy to a mininum, cross references the occurences across media, and keeps what is a fair archival tool. Some of us get strangely inspired by such cross-fertilizations, and if one is browsing (translation playing) stumbling across such can be a fun read. Last time I looked, the foundation and such were delighted when we got accessed for any reason. Any text containing 'keywords' increases our hit count and exposure on the various search engines, and I'm quite sure the foundation wants those as high as possible. A everything but the kitchen sink article like this helps achieve that, as does all the 'Pop culture' stuff I care less than a plugged-penny for personally, save as an editor of this project. That requires a professional hat that looks at such pop factors, search engine factors, etc.

<g>Haven't ever really seen much of a guideline citing Wikiworthy, an iteresting idea of an IdeaL, but not one shared much by Jimbo and the foundation board, nor evident in any of the pop culture articles which are daily created herein; this one just needs a bit of 'managed care' and top-down organization. 'Nuff said.

Just want to address this Ferwig note found on the talk:If you believe there are more actors in IMDB than fictional universes ever invented, you are sorely, sorely mistaken. I believe we've had discussion on limiting the article to Series sorts of universes... which would be the criteria for inclusion. 'One-of' novel milieus or films sans sequels would be in their own article. Best regards. // FrankB 07:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• • "Kill your darlings." That's what they say to writers about self-editing. I respect immensely that work was put into this article, but that does not in itself make it Wikiworthy. Fearwig 21:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep How else would we organize pages dealing with specific fictional universes? User:Dimadick

• Through the category, which does already exist. Mike Christie 15:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment — The categories all should have a 'Main' Article giving them scope. This is the one for that useful category. I do tend to think of it as Alternat(iv)e Universes, especially for written and screen fiction, both 'Arts'.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that main article be Fictional universe, not List of fictional universes? Mike Christie 12:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

But here's a news flash for those that think this category name is too long. Get used to it. The common category naming scheme from metawiki via the commons uses A LOT OF LONGISH technically specific category names. (e.g. Category:Middle Ages has categories like these shorties:

See also: Category:Maps showing the history of the Early Middle Ages, Category:Maps showing the history of the High Middle Ages, Category:Maps showing the history of the Late Middle Ages, Category:Maps showing the history of the Middle Ages, Category:Old maps of Europe, and Category:Maps of the history of Europe just for starters, and similar names by period, country, region, etc. Most short confusing category names will soon be tagged with {{category redirect}}, and the sisterproject wide categories will be taking over. The good news is many of our basic article categories of a technical nature are a-Okay, but poorly worded ones that are more 'idiomatic' thus translating badly are being kicked out in favor of those that cross into the other language projects. Best regards! // FrankB 07:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)