Category talk:Atlas Shrugged

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Objectivist fancruft

Category:Atlas_Shrugged - Why are there 8 articles on one book? In all other cases this would be fancruft and deleted immediately. Comments? -- infinity0 23:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The main entry is reasonable enough. It's a popular book, after all. However, many of these other articles in the category are not at all encyclopedic, unless it's an encyclopedia dedicated solely to one book. Listing every character, company or thing is too exhaustive, and constitutes original research in just the same way that a phone book can be copyrighted. If this information were hosted on a dedicated pro-Rand web site (and there's certainly no shortage of them), then a link would certaily be appropriate. However, this is not a hosting service for original research on Rand, so I support deleting most of these articles. Alienus 23:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the main information should be merged, and the rest deleted as unencyclopedic. Or maybe even Trivia about Atlas Shrugged created. But not 8 subpages! -- infinity0 00:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

My main concern is with all the articles that contain nothing but lists. They're not something an encyclopedia needs to have about anything. One list even admits it's of minor characters. I think this work needs to be moved somewhere else, far far away. My recommendation is that we put all the text into an archive off the main article, so that it's preserved, then delete almost all of these spin-off articles. What do you think? Alienus 01:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
The characters articles aren't too unusual per Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), I'm less certain about the others. Maybe they could go on Wikibooks? Esquizombi 04:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm absolutely convinced that the credibility of Wikipedia is enormously enhanced by the presense of 6,000 artiles on a piece of less-than-mediocre fiction like Atlas Shrugged. The editors of the Encycopedia Britannica are wetting their pants after noting the presense of such extraordinary, high-quality educational material in an encyclopedia. This is obvious fluff and also brings up the element of frightening cult-like fanaticism to one group or one idea which is currently overwhelming the Wiki. Delete all but one and let's discuss radically chaning those fiction standards as well. If it comes to that, I can write an article on every single character in single work of Dostoyesvkij. These would surely pass any standards that can be passed by the crap that Ayn Rant rigurgitated from socialist realism. But that would surely amount to perhaps thousands of entries. Then, I can begin work on all the charters in all the fiction of Tolstoy, Pirandello, etc.. Please, come on now, folks!! One article is more than sufficient.--Lacatosias 08:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to their deletion either. Perhaps try Prodding Companies in Atlas Shrugged, Concepts in Atlas Shrugged, Places in Atlas Shrugged, Technology in Atlas Shrugged, Things in Atlas Shrugged and Topics of note in Atlas Shrugged. AfD might be more appropriate for Characters in Atlas Shrugged and Minor characters in Atlas Shrugged since they could be more controversial deletions, since as I noted above character lists are allowed per policy. Esquizombi 12:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah it's a bit too much. Still I suggest we do this with a bot of tact. Obviously this is something that somebody worked on with a love of the topic. Just outright deleting it is the kind of thing that drives people off the Wiki. It happens every day, and we should be more mindful of it. Suggesting the book is "less-than-mediocre" misses the mark in the tact department. Cheers, The Minister of War (Peace) 12:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but I honestly think that driving out cranks, fanatics and children may be exactly what is necessary in order to attract serious-minded, knowledegable experts, for example Larry Sanger.--Lacatosias 10:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Does WP have a TactBot? Esquizombi 12:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Come to think of it, why dont we have a "random-acts-of-kindness"-bot?

[edit] AfD

Right, so does anyone object to me putting the subpages except "Characters" up for deletion? -- infinity0 16:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I think most of the content deserves to be deleted, but there are probably main points that are spread out over the articles that can be merged. I don't know anything about the books, though. -- infinity0 17:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we try this "tact" thing that I've heard so many rumors about but have never seen, at least not on Wikipedia. Pick the very worst of the articles; something long-winded about trivial nonsense, and start the deletion process for it. From the titles, I'd say Things in Atlas Shrugged is about as trivial as it gets, so let's start there. You have my support, for what it's worth. Alienus 20:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I merged Companies myself, but didn't cut any data. But do we really need section numbers for everything, just because Rand didn't put in an index? Septentrionalis 18:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not surprised that these pages survived the AfD, given that it only takes a few die-hard Objectivists to block any consensus. We can, however, merge all of this stuff into one or two pages, wiping out any excess or redundancy. Perhaps we should. I'm afraid to volunteer myself for this task largely because my idea of merge and delete would look much more like the latter than the former. Alienus 19:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I just merged Who is John Galt? to Topics of note in Atlas Shrugged and Minor characters in Atlas Shrugged to Characters in Atlas Shrugged. Left the pages non-empty, and non-redirects, so they still show up in the category, though. -- infinity0 20:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I have put up Who is John Galt? and Minor characters in Atlas Shrugged for RfD. -- infinity0 17:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I opposed you there, but I would be perfectly happy to have these transwikied if you withdraw the RfD nomination. Septentrionalis 19:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
That would be transwikiing the main articles, not the redirects, though? -- infinity0 20:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Right. Restore, put on AfD to transwiki, and the whole thing goes to Wikibooks where it belongs. Septentrionalis 22:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I have moved to transwiki Technology, on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Technology_in_Atlas_Shrugged. Septentrionalis 19:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC) Also Concepts [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Concepts_in_Atlas_Shrugged.Septentrionalis 22:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What these pages were

See Talk:Atlas_Shrugged#Atlas_Shrugged_section_of_Wikipedia and Talk:Atlas Shrugged/Delete. Once long ago, when rocks were soft and Wikipedia was young, there were a thousand subpages of Atlas Shrugged, one for each detail. Then they were grouped into the pages in these categories. What we should do (and I'm not going to do it tonight) is transwiki these to Wikibooks, and then write the extended article with that resource.

Ah, so this has all happened before. Alienus 18:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Has anybody compared Rand's writing to Edna Ferber? Septentrionalis 06:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Why, did Ferber start a religion, too? I thought she was best known for being a good writer. Alienus 18:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Well Ferber wrote better; but the Big Strong Man, with the Theory of Sex, does sound similar. Septentrionalis 19:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two articles?

Do we really need a category for only two articles? Talk pages and pictures don't count. -- LGagnon 20:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

There used to be seven or more, but the fancruft was cut down a bit. At this point, a category seems superfluous. Al 20:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/t/l/Category_talk%7EAtlas_Shrugged_3fb8.html"