User talk:KF/Sanctuary IX

Talk page

Great list, but what about strong heroines who were not the title character? What about a discussion of heroines, not just a list? I think this page is a great start to what could be more. Radagast

(1) You have to draw the line somewhere.

(2) This page can only contain the list -- a list that serves as a table of contents. The discussion of a heroine has to be under her name (= the title of the book). We've got quite a number of articles already, and casual browsers are encouraged to contribute at the bottom of the page.

<KF> 18:03, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Should really be called List of literary works with eponymous heroines. The current title is very misleading. I expected a discussion type articles. Filiocht 12:59, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

By all means, move the list to any title you think is better/more complex. After this about a page originally entitled Losers in literature I'm not going to argue about things like that. All the best, <KF> 20:18, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

What's wrong with List of heroines in literature? Wikikiwi 20:28, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nothing, if that's what it is. But currently it is a list of works where the title is also the name of the heroine, hence my sugestion. Filiocht 07:22, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to be bold in a sec although I'm afraid lots of people won't understand "eponymous heroines". Wikikiwi 15:48, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever moved a page before but it seems to have worked. Both Heroines in literature and my own suggestion, List of heroines in literature, now redirect to Filiocht's List of literary works with eponymous heroines.

Do we also have Heroin in literature? Wikikiwi 15:55, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand it. Either it is list of heroines in literature, or list of literature with heroines in name, but it can't be both. So either the contents or redirects are bad. Can anyone give an authoritative answer about what is? Thanks :) Samohyl Jan 22:11, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is just a list of works were the name of the work is the name of the heroine. Heroines in literature and List of heroines in literature should be different things entirely. Filiocht 08:46, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

The Deed of Paksenarrion

Not sure why this was removed, but as it's definitely named after its heroine, I've put it back. --Masamage 04:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wait, the lead to the article explains that. Guess I'm re-removing it. o__O Sorry about that.

Just curious, why is that a rule? --Masamage 04:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because otherwise we would have to include thousands of titles, and the whole list would become unmaintainable. <KF> 15:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why sorted by author?

Why is this page sorted by author when the subject is obviously the book? It make for very confusing searching. How would everyone else feel about it being re-organised by title of the book? Tartan 23:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pages that link to this list ...

... and to the old title, "Heroines in literature"

Deletion

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of literary works with eponymous heroines

In the same vein as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of literary works with eponymous heroes (well, at least the bottom half): An exceedingly pointless topic to base a list on. Is there some actual connection between those books other than the fact that they fit some arbitrary criteria chosen by the editors? Some don't even fit the given criteria; Esther: A Novel does not "consist of the name of the female protagonist only", not to mention strange inclusions like The Patchwork Girl of Oz. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 21:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ultra weak keep The debate is whether or not we consider this to be an indiscriminate collection of information. Although the list could use a bit of cleanup, the info in there is easily verifiable so WP:NOT is really the sole thing to worry about. While I personally see no great value in such a list, it could be kept on the grounds that Wikipedia is not paper. Pascal.Tesson 00:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the arguments given in the companion AfD. This list is rather orphaned without its male counter part and there isn't really any good reason to divide this up by gender anyway. I would say that ultimately this is indiscriminant enough to delete. Eluchil404 08:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't establish much of a notable connection between the items on the list. This may have been a closer call for me, but the deletion of the companion article effectively makes this an odd orphan.--Kubigula (talk) 05:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above... Addhoc 13:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Deletion review

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 24

follow-up deletion, no thorough discussion <KF> 11:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At first there was no request for deletion at all. Rather, a contributor was hoping that the companion article, List of literary works with eponymous heroes (that one still very much work in progress), would be improved. As no deletion was requested, "speedy close" of discussion was suggested. However, at that point someone who had never contributed to either page (User:Apostrophe) suddenly requested deletion. In the wake of the ensuing debate (about the definition of "hero", whether it could ever be NPOV, where participants misinterpreted the literary term as a moral judgement), attention was also paid to the corresponding "female" list. Its deletion was only requested by four contributors (who had never contributed to it), and one of the major reasons cited was that now, after the deletion of its "male" counterpart, the list was "orphaned". In fact it had existed since 2003, had always been carefully maintained (not just by myself but also by other contributors who also seem to have been unaware of the deletion process) and is linked to by more than 20 pages.

I request undeletion as this list serves at least two purposes: to show all those involved in the WikiProject Novels which articles are still missing, and mainly because it serves as a survey of works of literature with eponymous female protagonists. Minor problems—what should be included, what not, etc.—could be easily discussed, and resolved, on the talk page.

If you want to create a list of missing novels in project space as part of your WikiProject, go right ahead. Consensus was pretty clear here and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of literary works with eponymous heroes that these lists are not suitable for mainspace due to their arbitrary nature. Guy (Help!) 11:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Such a list can be of interest not just to members of this particular WikiProject but to all students of literature. There is nothing whatsoever arbitrary about individual authors deciding to call their novel after the female protagonist (for example, you can notice a marked increase in the second half of the 19th century, what with "fallen women" becoming "heroines" etc.). Also, this list also included/includes all literary genres (drama and poetry). Finally, you are referring to the wrong deletion discussion. There is no mention of what you are referring to at the "female" counterpart. <KF> 11:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please see WP:USEFUL. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restore - Hero or Heroine is a well known literary term and should be seen as such. These debates are often small minded and often without specialist knowledge of the field envolved. Both articles should be reinstated, however work to cite and reference items included should be added. More examples of the binning of perfectly good (albeit incomplete work). :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse consensus was clear (especially if the two AfD's are looked at in tandem). A list of missing novels belongs in the project space. Eluchil404 12:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it belongs in the project space, it should've been moved instead of deleted.- Mgm|^(talk) 12:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But this wasn't that list. This was a list with poorly defined and indescriminant criteria for membership. My point was that the "redlinks are useful" argument applies to projectspace not mainspace. Eluchil404 12:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. There was a clear consensus, and your reasons for overturning it are a bunch of arguments about how it's useful (which is not a criterion for inclusion), how you worked on it (again, not a criterion), and a bunch of blasting of the people who recommended deletion. Nothing convincing. -Amark moo! 15:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion as above Bwithh 16:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Consensus was clear in the AFD. The very nature of a wiki is that no editor or group of editors owns any content, and any editor can begin adding or removing material at any time. GRBerry 16:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Clear consensus in both AfDs. I see no procedural error and cannot think of anything that could be said differently about this article that could not be said about the companion article. I also see no reason why the opinion of those who did not contribute to the article ought to be discounted. Agent 86 18:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy restore although I can feel that if people who have hardly any idea about the subject-matter can vote on this there is no hope. "Consensus was clear"? What does that mean? What would an "unclear consensus" be? Why do only the "endorse deletion" arguments count but not the "restore" arguments? If, as GRBerry says above, "any editor can begin adding or removing material at any time", how can I add the material that has been deleted? Whycreateanaccount 18:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I really don't appreciate being turned into a target and implied to be akin to a "destructive" Cro-Magnon with no appreciation for the finer arts because I don't contribute to your cherished articles. Wikipedia isn't a personal playground for for you; there are other kids, and they do get a say. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 19:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was just nasty. Especially since there seems to be some sympathy towards moving the list into project space, so no work would be lost. Guy (Help!) 22:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restore. Yes, I agree with Guy that it was indeed nasty to delete the list. A noteworthy collection of titles whose unifying criterion is that the heroine gives the book its title. The criteria are in no way indiscriminate (that's what you mean by "indescriminant", right?). For example, DuMaurier's Rebecca was excluded because the character of Rebecca actually never appears in the novel etc. The list would have been the basis of more extensive work of the typology sort, like creating various types of heroines etc. Where can I get hold of that list? I jsut dont believe someone had it deleted. Wikikiwi 10:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS. If you look up my user contributions now it may seem I hardly ever contribute, but many of my edits were this list.

- It's indiscriminate because there's no actual connection between the novels. "creating various types of heroines"? Are you sure that isn't original research? Furthermore, the "nasty" is referring to my name being dragged through the mud. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 16:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restore The lists were useful and as said above the term "hero" or "heroine" is a valid term in literature. Even if this is still part of the argument against the list, why not change the name of the list to "List of books with female eponymous protagonists" and the same for the male counterparts? Tartan 13:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:USEFUL. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 16:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - See Wikipedia:Lists#Purpose_of_lists, where the word "useful" is used in an official Wikipedia guideline ("useful for development purposes"). <KF> 13:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restore I'm editing now for the first time, but I have been using this list as a point of reference for I suppose more than 3 years. I don't know if I'm doing the right thing here, I found this page via the What links here button on the talk page. Sorry if I have made a mistake, if so please delete this again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.65.173.162 (talk) 14:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Endorse deletion per consensus here. >Radiant< 15:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Let me point out again that the consensus you are referring to concerns a different article, not the one under consideration here. <KF> 16:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- PS The main objection brought forward against this list is its arbitrariness ("an indiscriminate collection of titles", "there's no actual connection between the novels"), i e the lack of a criterion by which you can tell whether an item fits into the list or not. Now if that is true, I suppose a list such as the List of unusual deaths—"unique causes or extremely rare circumstances throughout history", as it says in the introductory sentence—will even more so violate Wikipedia's official policy against arbitrariness.
- The reasons are clear. Not only are book titles verifiable (no problem at all, any publisher's or library catalogue will do) whereas death "by having a red-hot iron inserted into one's anus" (Edward II of England, 1327) may be "apocryphal," it is also highly subjective and POV whether you consider a certain death "unusual". Any lifelong militant non-smoker dying of lung cancer plus their family and friends will tell you they think their imminent death is not just unfair but also "unusual" although we know that 13.4 per cent of lung cancer deaths are not attributable to smoking and are thus not "unusual" at all. As far as lists of works of literature are concerned, while the content of a particular book may be controversial, a book title hardly ever is. You couldn't possibly say, "I don't think Mrs Dalloway is the title of the book and at the same time the name of the female protagonist, do you?" On the other hand, what, pray, is so "unusual" about suffering a fatal heart attack during a discussion, which happened to Alexander Woolcott in 1943?
- Consequently, one might think, the List of unusual deaths will already have met its maker, maybe even have been speedy-deleted. However, this page reveals that the list has even been a Featured list candidate.
- Don't get me wrong here. This is the first time I've come across that list, and I thoroughly enjoyed browsing through it, so under no circumstances would I want to see it deleted either. The whole point of knowledge is that isolated items of knowledge are cross-referenced, grouped and regrouped under a broad variety of titles and categories so that new insights can be gained. In that context someone even pre-emptively resorted to Wikipedia's "no original research" argument just because someone who would like to see the list restored pointed out that they were planning—privately, I suppose—to use the list as the starting point of some further categorisation.
- So rather than having some more "Endorse deletion per consensus" or "Endorse deletion per above" votes by experienced voters or critical comments saying that unusual deaths are not the issue here (I know that very well), could someone actually explain to me what makes that other list—a random choice by the way—so much more eligible for inclusion than the female protagonists? <KF> 18:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - As you so kindly reminded us, "Let me point out again that the consensus you are referring to concerns a different article, not the one under consideration here." Either precedent counts or it doesn't. You're also assuming that we approve of that article when you have no basis for believing as such. I know I don't. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 18:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Regardless, featured list candidacy proves absolutely nothing. Anybody can do such to any list, and for you to use this for your support is deceptive, implying that only exemplary or consensus-approved lists get this. Especially with the fact that there was absolutely no support for it becoming a featured list. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 19:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Deceptive" is a strong word, and I don't like being called a deceiver. This I'm afraid is no basis for a discussion. Whom should I want to deceive anyway if all I'm doing is asking for an explanation not why the List of unusual deaths has, or has not, or has almost been, awarded Featured List status but why it has survived two Votes for Deletion although, by all standards of objectivity, it is far more "arbitrary" than the Female Protagonists ever could become. I've never understood what makes individuals so set upon having something removed which they could easily ignore while at the same time others would benefit from it. This deletion has already driven away one (more or less potential) contributor to the literature articles, and I can well imagine that Wikikiwi might also stop contributing if what they say—that they mainly contributed to this list—is true (which I can no longer verify because the edits have been eradicated from their user contributions). Have it your way. There is no point in carrying on once it gets personal. And no, I'm not feeling chatty any more. <KF> 20:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restore Looking at the debate, it was clear that there certainly had been no consensus that lists in general were not suitable for article space. There may possibly have been some consensus about this particular list in the state it was in at the time, but it will take more than a single AfD to get a consensus on where lists can go--in fact, I do not think we will ever have a consensus about what to do with lists, though sometimes people (not represented here) have tried to remove individual ones on the basis of various pretended policies.

it was also clear that the debate there was really a personal fight which quickly diverged into unrelated issues. i don't think any decision made in that atmosphere should stand. I know I didnt participate because of the way it was going.

In fact, the same thing is happening again here. Some of the debate above is about other lists entirely. Some of it is about tobacco-related deaths. At least it isn't over-personal. DGG 05:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm not seeing the relevance of your arguments. Lists aren't at debate here. An arbitrary list is. I'm also not seeing a "personal fight" in the AfD. Are you sure you're in the right debate? ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 06:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Choices and actions are considered to be arbitrary when they are done not by means of any underlying principle or logic, but by whim or some decidedly illogical formula." Thus, rather than the list itself, its being singled out for deletion is arbitrary. <KF> 13:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Do you have any sort of argument beyond WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and that I'm not spending my entire life nominating articles for deletion? I'm sorry I'm not a superhuman capable of nominating every article I don't like in Wikipedia. Not only do you have to find all of them, you'd have to exert yourself arguing against inclusionists. I'm not exactly in the mood to redo this same debate a thousand times over, you see. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 17:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - First of all, your not being "capable of nominating every article I don't like in Wikipedia" reveals the interesting insight that you are using a highly personal rather than an objective yardstick when it comes to assessing Wikipedia articles. You shouldn't do this while at the same time hiding behind various official guidelines such as "USEFUL" or "OTHERCRAP". Secondly, I have explained all my arguments above, and others have done so as well, but if each argument in favour of keeping/restoring this list is automatically met with disapproval of its validity, honestly, there is nothing to be added here. I have said so already, and I do not consider myself a loser for it. It's a sad thing that casual users accessing an article about an individual novel will from now on be denied the larger picture, that they will no longer be referred to the fact that there are many more works of literature with eponymous heroines they might want to consider, but that's the way it is. <KF> 00:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You're grasping at straws. My dislike of Wikipedia articles is based on policy, whether you agree with my interpretation or not. The fact that I "don't like" things doesn't indicate a "highly personal yardstick". I also perplex at your hypocrisy; you are somehow allowed to dispute endorse opinions, but I am not allowed to do so in return? Please stop applying standards to your opponents that you cannot follow yourself. Furthermore, disallowing the opposing side to refute your points entirely defeats the purpose of debate. It's rather clear that you're letting this get too personal, as indicated by this (some of which can be taken as a personal attack). May I suggest a breather? ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 02:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        As I said, there is nothing to be added to this deletion review. If you feel you can personally profit from that sort of thing, consider yourself the winner of this debate. All the best, <KF> 03:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]