Talk:Lispeth

[Untitled]
I see the deletion notice; I am the only editor of this page so far, other than Stifle. I don't want to take offence in any personalised way. I would like to say, however, that I think the notice is misconceived. I am engaged on a project which appears to me entirely legitimate, both in my own and in Wikipedia's terms, and which has attracted a certain amount of at least tacit support - see [] for an ongoing discussion of what I am doing.

To summarise: I am at the start of a very long project. My aim is to classify and cross-reference the many hundred short stories that Kipling wrote, grouping them in ways that bring out some of the underlying patterns, concerns and themes of all his work. To this end, the intention is that the articles should be principally plot summary, and the categories into which the stories are grouped are largely, in the first instance, based on the different characters, or sorts of characters, and subjects about which he wrote. Articles about these characters, or groups of characters, will also, please God, eventually be written (a start has been made with Mrs. Hauksbee, Soldiers Three and (so far only drafted) Learoyd, Mulvaney and Ortheris.) If Wikipedia is not about organising information, like all other encyclopedias to my knowledge, I cannot think what it is about. This is a way of enhancing the readership, and appreciation, of a great - or at least famous - writer. It conveys information in a way that may, indeed should, help some of the seekers after knowledge that visit wikipedia, and in general add to its stock of knowledge. It is perhaps relevant to say that the stories are by and large of a mere 5 or 6 pages, and that a good deal of the effect of what Kipling wrote is cumulative. So a series of brief articles giving the outline of each story is useful and appropriate.

I would like to submit that the attempt here begun is a proper and valuable project. Like all other wikipedia articles, all that I write can be - and probably will be - improved; but it is not worthless, even in its initial stages.

Frankly, Stifle, I cannot see the grounds of your objection. I cannot, for a start, find a precise response to the link WP:NOT#PLOT that you give: I only reach the general section 'Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information'. Mine, I submit, is a discriminating and useful collection of information. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) says "Next, if the subject warrants inclusion in Wikipedia, editors should consider what to write about a subject, and how to best present that information. Because these questions are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should address both these questions simultaneously in order to create a well-written article. [I have considered this] and

"Please note that this page is a guideline, not policy, and it should be approached with common sense and the occasional exception. However, following the basic notions laid out in this guideline is generally a good way to improve articles on fictional topics." My common sense tells me that I am doing a useful thing.

MacAuslan (talk) 17:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)