Talk:Ender's Game Series

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Merge Proposal: Hierarchy of Alienness

I am for the merging.

Discussion moved from Talk:Hierarchy of Alienness

Sorry it's taken me a while to get back to this. This type of short article that only exists in the context of a particular fictional work (or series) would be much more useful if it were included in the article on that series. NThurston 20:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Please see discussion here regarding the usage of fiction in the Wikipedia. I'm still not wholly convinced this isn't a bad faith nomination following my nomination of Pulp and Paper Merit Badge for deletion. — Scm83x hook 'em 20:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I think you're missing the point. More generally, subsetting "stub" information out into their own articles makes the whole of Wikipedia less useful. This would be true of any article or topic as you can see by the many shorter Scouting-related articles that have been merge to form longer, coherent articles. The fact that these articles are based on a fictional work (see the discussion of fancruft in your reference) strongly suggests that there is not likely any possibility that more information will be available in the future, hence these little bits are going to be perpetual stubs. So rather than have a whole cadre of stub-like articles discussing elements of the plot from this series, the information would be much better presented in a single article. Granted it will be longer, but there is more chance for the information to be correlated within the article. Much better approach than spawning a dozen or more little articles.
As for the bad faith issue, I thought we had already worked this out - when you nominated that page for deletion, I thought I should find out who you are and what your perspective is from your User Page. In doing so, I discovered a whole set of these little articles and thought that it didn't make sense for them to exist separately from the main article (see preceding paragraph). While I am not particularly interested in this topic, I did note my suggestions for improvement on the pages.
I had a lot of other stuff that I was working on, and only recently decided to come back to see what had happened, only to find out that you had immediately (and unilaterally) removed the nominations for merging and that not only had nothing been done, you had cut off the process before it had been seen. I have come to understand that many would consider what you did (unilaterally removing a nomination for improvement) as vandalism. However, I will assume good faith on your part, and simply think it best to restart the conversation.
Recent experience with that other page has shown that the Wiki process DOES work. It's much better now, and there are many who support keeping the information there. So I kindly request that you let this work in favor of topics that you are interested in. What's lost if the articles turn out more useful and better for having additional eyes?NThurston 19:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Regarding your quote "subsetting "stub" information out into their own articles makes the whole of Wikipedia less useful", I do not believe this to be true. I have not read the applicable books to this article in a while and therefore have not had the proper knowledge fresh in my mind to expand this article. The subject of this article is mentioned a multitude of times in every chapter as it is one of the main core elements of the series, which partly explores the definitions of the Hierarchy. From WP:STUB, "When you write a stub article, it is important to bear in mind that its main interest is to be expanded". Expansion is completely possible for this article; the fact is that no one with the proper knowledge of the topic has come across it yet. This will happen eventually, either when someone else does or when I reread the books. Additionally, it is not true that the information is static. The author, Orson Scott Card, is working on yet another book in the series. Please also consider everything2, m:inclusionism, and m:Wiki is not paper. — Scm83x hook 'em 20:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Opinions

I am for merging these into one coherent article. NThurston 19:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Disagree -- Maybe it should be merged with some Ender article, but IMO not this one. --SSTwinrova 04:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree -- I agree with SSTwinrova, it should be merged with an Ender article, though not this one. Maybe the Speaker for the Dead article, since that book goes into the actual hierarchy more. Hieros 18:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree -- I too agree with SSTwinrova, and say that it should be merged with an Ender arcticle, but I don't think that the Speaker for the Dead article would be a good choice. Personally, I think that a new Concepts in the Ender's Game Series article should be added, with the Hierarchy of Alienness and Anton's Key. NHammen 20:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • disagree -- I also believe that it shouldn't be merged with this one. -- - Damien Vryce 22:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)