User talk:Loafysam: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→More Percy Jackson-specific questions:: about in-world and fancruft |
|||
| Line 119: | Line 119: | ||
:::I've actually had my eye on Summer of My German Soldier too. The plot is too play-by-play. That's the biggest problem, IMO. There are suggestions for improvement on the talk page. |
:::I've actually had my eye on Summer of My German Soldier too. The plot is too play-by-play. That's the biggest problem, IMO. There are suggestions for improvement on the talk page. |
||
:::About in-world and fancruft. Eliminating either is much the same. Think of an encyclopedic entry and what is absolutely necessary (that eliminates fancruft) and what the reader has no reason to know already (in-world). In-world contributions tend to use fictional creations, settings, or characters as real ones. Such "Percy Jackson's sword is made of celestial bronze." The reader may or may not have any reason to already know what celestial bronze is. We work around that with this: "a fictional metal which will injure immortals and monsters, but not wound mortals." Also, in-world would be an article that completely focuses on the plot and not any reception or such. Fancruft is excessive detail. This could be in plot summary, list of characteristics, etcetera. Some of those are good, but it can be too much. Getting rid of them, you don't have to suggest anything. [[WP:OWN|No one owns the article.]] However, if there are other major contributors to an article, you may wish to bring up the question at the talk page. Citing policies, not your own opinion, is a good idea. Also, make exact suggestions for improvement, not general. If no one responds within a reasonable time (anywhere from several days to a few weeks), feel free to make the changes yourself. New eyes are always useful for spotting either of these problems. I hope this answers your questions fully. If you need any clarification, feel free to ask. (I'm still getting to the rest of the questions!) <font face="Lucida Calligraphy">[[User:PrincessofLlyr|<font color="darkgreen">PrincessofLlyr</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:PrincessofLlyr|<font color="blue">royal court</font>]]</sup></font> 12:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC) |
:::About in-world and fancruft. Eliminating either is much the same. Think of an encyclopedic entry and what is absolutely necessary (that eliminates fancruft) and what the reader has no reason to know already (in-world). In-world contributions tend to use fictional creations, settings, or characters as real ones. Such "Percy Jackson's sword is made of celestial bronze." The reader may or may not have any reason to already know what celestial bronze is. We work around that with this: "a fictional metal which will injure immortals and monsters, but not wound mortals." Also, in-world would be an article that completely focuses on the plot and not any reception or such. Fancruft is excessive detail. This could be in plot summary, list of characteristics, etcetera. Some of those are good, but it can be too much. Getting rid of them, you don't have to suggest anything. [[WP:OWN|No one owns the article.]] However, if there are other major contributors to an article, you may wish to bring up the question at the talk page. Citing policies, not your own opinion, is a good idea. Also, make exact suggestions for improvement, not general. If no one responds within a reasonable time (anywhere from several days to a few weeks), feel free to make the changes yourself. New eyes are always useful for spotting either of these problems. I hope this answers your questions fully. If you need any clarification, feel free to ask. (I'm still getting to the rest of the questions!) <font face="Lucida Calligraphy">[[User:PrincessofLlyr|<font color="darkgreen">PrincessofLlyr</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:PrincessofLlyr|<font color="blue">royal court</font>]]</sup></font> 12:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC) |
||
::::You couldn't have said it better (difference between fancruft and in-world writing) :) --[[User:Loafysam|loafysam]] ([[User talk:Loafysam#top|talk]]) 20:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 20:29, 20 April 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia!
|
Welcome to the Percy Jackson Task Force!
|
|
Talkback
Message added 18:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
PrincessofLlyr royal court 18:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Interview request
I would be glad to answer any questions you might have. You can post them here, on my talk, at the PJTF talkpage, or in a totally separate subpage. Best of luck with your project! PrincessofLlyr royal court 19:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks! I greatly appreciate it! I've posted them below. Please feel free to answer them here or, if you prefer, we can do it by e-mail.--loafysam (talk) 20:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- I don't have e-mail enabled, so I'll just answer them here. I'm kind of busy, so I'll get to those later questions another time. It will be soon! PrincessofLlyr royal court 22:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- I really appreciate your answers below. I liked your description of Wikignome and think that's what I like to do here too so I grabbed a Wikignome box for my userpage:) Please answer the PJTF questions at your convenience. Best, --loafysam (talk) 23:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- I don't have e-mail enabled, so I'll just answer them here. I'm kind of busy, so I'll get to those later questions another time. It will be soon! PrincessofLlyr royal court 22:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
General Questions:
How long have you been an editor at Wikipedia?
- Since May 26, 2009, so about 11 months.
How did you get started? How did you learn the rules? Did you just jump straight into a discussion? Did you find it welcoming, or isolating at first?
- My first edit was removing vandalism. (you can see the edit here) Learning the rules was gradual. I tried to read policies as I came across them. User:Airplaneman posted a welcome template with useful links on my talkpage, so I learned some that way. I'm still learning. At first, I did not have much interaction with other editors. My work was on unfrequented pages and very minimal. However, since becoming more active, I have found most users to be friendly and welcoming.
How would you describe yourself as an editor (or, if you prefer, what kinds of edits do you generally make?)
- Wikignome. I tend to go for smaller, uncontroversial edits. I do maintenance, cleaning out the unassessed articles categories for various projects. I do some vandal-fighting.
What motivates or inspires you to write and edit for Wikipedia?
- Hard to say. Expanding knowledge, helping the project, something to do. They all apply.
How many edits do you think you have made to date?
- After this, it will be 4,664. (You can see here).
How many pages do you have on your watchlist? Does it ever change (do you take pages off your watchlist)?
- There are currently 239 pages on my watchlist, including user talk, etc. It is continually fluctuating.
What WikiProjects/taskforces are you affiliated with?
What articles are you most proud of in terms of your contributions, and why?
- That's hard. I tend to contribute gnomishly to many articles. I helped prepare The Titan's Curse for Good Article review. Helping a quality article is always neat. I've done some work on Gary Soto and am one of the main contributors to that page. In general, my contributions to the various projects and task forces listed above.
How would you characterize cooperation or working with others in Wikipedia?
- It's very similar to real life, with the exception that here, you can walk away. There are many different viewpoints, temperaments, and ages. You try to work with people, and if you can't, work somewhere else. There is always something you can do. The rules for interacting with people are still the same. Be civil and assume good faith.
More Percy Jackson-specific questions:
How did the PJTF get started? What's your estimate on the number of active registered contributors to PJ articles?
Can you describe a memorable moment in the creation or maintenance of any of the Percy Jackson pages? Or in the Talk/Discussion sections of those pages? (can be positive or negative)
In your opinion, has it been a difficult balance to maintain an encyclopedic tone when writing articles about a fictional character and plot summaries?
What are some of the challenges that PJTF/PJTO has faced?
Do you write fan fiction? If so, how is it different (more or less challenging than collaborating with others in Wikipedia?
Thanks so so much!! --loafysam (talk) 20:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- This might help some. Airplaneman ✈ 03:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- It really does, thanks, Airplaneman! So interesting to hear the editors discuss how they came to the articles- because they were in dire need of attention. I've been looking at Summer of My German Soldier and it's a bit of a rambling plot disaster- I'm trying to figure out where to begin. Do you (or Princess of Llyr or other editors) have any suggestions?
- Also, I wonder if you mind if I ask just a few more questions about the process of eliminating in-world writing or fancruft. How would you describe the process of eliminating in-world writing or fancruft? I guess another way of saying it is, what's your take on the difference between "in-world" contributions and fancruft-y ones, and how might one go about suggesting eliminating them (without getting editors who could be attached to their contributions upset)? Do you rely on new eyes for helping with those decisions? Appreciate your thoughtfulness --loafysam (talk) 05:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- I've actually had my eye on Summer of My German Soldier too. The plot is too play-by-play. That's the biggest problem, IMO. There are suggestions for improvement on the talk page.
- About in-world and fancruft. Eliminating either is much the same. Think of an encyclopedic entry and what is absolutely necessary (that eliminates fancruft) and what the reader has no reason to know already (in-world). In-world contributions tend to use fictional creations, settings, or characters as real ones. Such "Percy Jackson's sword is made of celestial bronze." The reader may or may not have any reason to already know what celestial bronze is. We work around that with this: "a fictional metal which will injure immortals and monsters, but not wound mortals." Also, in-world would be an article that completely focuses on the plot and not any reception or such. Fancruft is excessive detail. This could be in plot summary, list of characteristics, etcetera. Some of those are good, but it can be too much. Getting rid of them, you don't have to suggest anything. No one owns the article. However, if there are other major contributors to an article, you may wish to bring up the question at the talk page. Citing policies, not your own opinion, is a good idea. Also, make exact suggestions for improvement, not general. If no one responds within a reasonable time (anywhere from several days to a few weeks), feel free to make the changes yourself. New eyes are always useful for spotting either of these problems. I hope this answers your questions fully. If you need any clarification, feel free to ask. (I'm still getting to the rest of the questions!) PrincessofLlyr royal court 12:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- You couldn't have said it better (difference between fancruft and in-world writing) :) --loafysam (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- It really does, thanks, Airplaneman! So interesting to hear the editors discuss how they came to the articles- because they were in dire need of attention. I've been looking at Summer of My German Soldier and it's a bit of a rambling plot disaster- I'm trying to figure out where to begin. Do you (or Princess of Llyr or other editors) have any suggestions?