User talk:PurplePopple
Purple Popple
I don't know what I am doing. I do have a lot of information on the history of fan fiction. I fancy myself a fan fiction historian.
I appreciate your efforts to try to make this article better, but I would like to see a tiny bit more civility in your edit summaries — "What do these links have to do with the fandom? Write up why they matter. Random links make no sense." followed by "Actual information about the Harry Potter fandom put back in" sounds rather antagonistic. These links are the fandom, or at least a small portion of it. Of course the fandom is about the fans; the fans are the ones making the websites. If you feel some of the links need to be trimmed, or the article needs a serious rewrite, fine; but come discuss it on the talk page first, especially if someone reverts your edit, before reverting back to your version with an antagonistic edit summary. Thank you. Hermione1980 5 July 2005 00:56 (UTC)
Slash Fiction category
Yo! Just saw the great new articles you've made for this category (and Category:Real Person Fic). The naming convention asks that articles have first word capitalised, and subsequent not capitalised, unless the subsequent words are proper nouns. Star Trek, for example, but not Computer Game. I'm not sure what the exact stand on abbreviations (e.g. Fic for fan fiction) is, but I think the article titles should follow the example of Real person fiction. If you have no objections, I'll rename these articles for you. :D Jude(talk,contribs) 00:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Psst
I'm trying to build support for this nomination in its last few days. Please check out this page. Pass it along. Nudge nudge. -- evrik 20:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
About your work.
The work you have done on all the articles in has become subject of scrutiny. I suggest you join the debate about the deletion of one of your articles here. ---Marcus- 10:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Can you explain how the subject of Mary Sue (fan fiction) differs from Mary Sue (popular culture)? I originally redirected your new article to the old one, thinking you'd created a duplicate, but you're obviously aware of the older article. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 01:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes. One is a term with a definition in fan fiction. There are fan fiction Mary Sues. The term originates there. No where does the article in any way imply that most of the usage comes from there. The history of the term implies that. The history of and most famous Mary Sues are there. In fan fiction, Mary Sues CANNOT BE CANON. Having a list of canon characters labelled as Mary Sues differentiates popular culture and fan fiction. Toss in the popular culture definition seeming to encompass tributes in canon as Mary Sues...
The two are just not the same. If they are one and the same, then the list should exclude all canon characters or have a rational beyond "It is the main character." How can Honor Harrington upstage canon characters, get laid by the leads, etc.? Not possible. She isn't a Mary Sue and can't be. So much of that list seems to be stars in a book.
Read the history of Mary Sue in fan fiction at http://fanhistory.schtuff.com/history_of_mary_sue and tell me how that has any relationship to the information on the popular culture page? --PurplePopple 02:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for explaining that. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 11:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Mary Sue split
Hi. It's obvious you're passionate about fan fiction and I appreciate the effort you're putting in, but I have to say that I think splitting up what I considered to be a pretty decent article on Mary Sue into the two separate pieces you've created was not the best way to improve it. The result now looks disjointed and has no cross-referencing to the other usage or indication of the evolutionary links between them. I think a better solution is to discuss Mary Sues in a single article and to have sections indicating and explaining the different usage of the term in fan fiction circles and wider popular culture. That way you explain everything about the term and have explicit reference to the differences in one place, which you can exploit to make the article more coherent and inclusive.
I think the best way forward is to revert the change you made to Mary Sue itself and work on that as a single article. The subarticles can then just be changed to redirects. Another word of advice: Wikipedia disallows "original research". Anything you add to an article has to be backed up by sources other than your own - so citing your own website as a reference is not allowed. I hope this constructive criticism helps you become a better Wikipedia editor. -dmmaus 04:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I have joined your new project. .png){kind=small}
Tennessee Wood 23:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)