Talk:Collaborative fiction/Archive 1

Eric Flint?
Are all the references to Eric Flint necessary to the article? While I can see using him as an example, the quote seems to be going to far. Is he really that notable when it comes to collaborative fiction in general? Crito2161 00:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I reacted to the lengthy quote as well. I deleted the quote and reduced the references to Flint. Lijil 11:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Robert Lynn Asprin - Myth Series
Thieves World is a great series that I refer people to when discussing FFRP and Collaborative fiction, and I love the series, but I'm not sure the Myth series would be considered collaborative, unless more stuff has come out not written by Asprin...? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RDI Panther (talk • contribs) 19:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

Merge from wikinovel
The outcome of the AfD from wikinovel was no consensus, but a suggestion to merge here. Whilst it is indisputable that the wikinovel is a kind of collaborative fiction, it is markedly different from the other forms discussed here, in that individual contributors don't "own" their own contribution -- i.e. they can't prevent their contributions from being edited into something entirely different later on. I think everything discussed in this article is substantially more structured, with authors owning either chapters or even entire books, or sometimes the characters within them. I think this distinction makes a merge inadvisable. Comments? JulesH 18:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I merged the content from wikinovel, hopefully the new placement is acceptable. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 02:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Time for a spring clean.
Greetings! I think there is a set of articles here that need some solid work to bring them up to standard - we have a group ( Collaborative_authorship, collaborative editing, and collaborative fiction ) of articles that are either very short, repetitive, or just not up to Wikipedia standard - I'm willing to invest some time to make this work - are there any other active editors looking at these pages who would like to be involved? I'm posting this message on the three (currently) relevant pages. I like to be quite bold with these things and we can all play with the revert cycle with no ego. I'll give it a week in case there are lurking editors who want to get involved and do the discussion thing and will get stuck in. Pflat (talk) 09:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Some quick thoughts - it would be great to have a few examples of commercially published and successful collaboratively written novels in the lead in. And it would also be great to have a lot more references in the article as a whole. I'm going to start digging for either of these. It would be also nice to find references that talk about the difference between collaborative writing and ghostwriting or editing. There's lots of instances of collabrative fiction used in education - I'll dig some of those out as well.

I've just taken world-building into it's own section out of wiki-novels as the links didn't really belong there.Pflat (talk) 22:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * While I'm going on - the groups in the origins section start at earliest in the early 1900s, yet the further reading book has the title "Collaborators in Literary America, 1870-1920." I think there might be some stuff missing there...  Possibly we could rename that section to 'Origins of internet collaborative writing?' Pflat (talk) 22:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Revert from 97.125.31.87
Hello all. User 97.125.31.87 sensibly noted that both wikistory and wikistory are effectively dead links and removed the paragraph that involved them. I reverted this - because I think their former existence was interesting to the field but changed the relevant paragraph by adding fact tags, putting into past tense and changing the language a little - hopefully this goes some way to dealing with the problems that the user found. I plan to come back with some references, but have to rush off now...

Pflat (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Structure
Editors watching the page will notice lots of movement as I try and get the structure right. Will stabilise shortly AdamCaputo (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Images
More images would be great. Any ideas? AdamCaputo (talk) 18:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

rewrite...
I just rewrote the too many cooks section in response to a tag left by an editor - it's great to see that other editors are getting involved - four different people edited the article last week, which I think is a first in it's history. If you've got any suggestions ect - it would be great to see them here... AdamCaputo (talk) 10:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

In Canada section
I question the value (and objectivity) of the inclusion of the "In Canada" section which currently contains only two sentences about protagonize and nothing else. The first says that it is "probably the most well known" without citing a source, and the second lists three countries of apparently random participants, with the aim being to present protagonize as having global appeal. The citations are links to the account profiles on protagonize itself. If these are published authors, their names should be mentioned in the article explicitly so their relevance is clear, otherwise I don't think there is much value in showing that a web site has users from different countries. I propose removing the section unless someone can improve it. --Frugen (talk) 03:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

SCP Foundation and similar projects
I think mentioning projects like the SCP Foundation, Global Occult Coalition, and the Wanderer's Library would help to illustrate this concept. These three alone have produced a massive amount of writings, and even short films and video game adaptations of stories. I'm sure there are other mythos and fandom based canons that deserve mention beyond those admittedly related ones, such as creepy pasta mythos like the one surrounding Slender Man. Open mindedness to including such projects is probably more in line with the spirit and purpose of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viethra (talk • contribs) 05:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Split Notes & References
So why are there 2 separate sections for the references? I think it rather should look like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Revolution#Notes_and_references

Also for most of the notes clicking them won't highlight a reference. It works with 4. Wilson but not with 1. McGoldrick for instance.

--Fixuture (talk) 01:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

"Antiquated ideas"
Collaborative fiction contains the sentences
 * Specifically, in the humanities collaborative authorship has been frowned upon in favor of the individual author. In these instances, antiquated ideas of individual genius influence how scholars look at issues of attribution and tenure.

"Antiquated ideas of individual genius" is certainly not neutral; it seems to be expressing an opinion stated in the cited source.

--Thnidu (talk) 14:07, 14 July 2016 (UTC)