Talk:Firestarter (novel)

Latest comment: 12 years ago by Anthony Appleyard in topic Move?

FLCL

edit

Do we really need the FLCL episode mentioned here? The connection to King's book seems like misinformation. Having read the book and seen the movie, and having watched FLCL, I see no relation between the two other than the name. If someone doesn't have a good explaination for what the connection is, I'm deleting this "information". -- LGagnon 12:14, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

Pointless move

edit

There was no need to move this; we could have made a link to the disambiguation page from the top of this article. After all, this is what is normally referred to when "Firestarter" is mentioned. -- LGagnon 21:41, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

A net search using google and yahoo for firestarter gives the firewall as the top result. Just what makes the book the "normally referred" one then? Please revert so the Firestarter page is a disambiguation page once again. --Ambar 04:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

As I said on your talk page, search engines don't determine everything. Honestly, what do you think people recognize better, a well-known novel by the world's best selling author or a firewall for an OS used by 1% of the population? The way I put it is pretty standard now and fits what people would be more likely to look up. I am going to move the article back here again. -- LGagnon 21:30, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Firestarter.jpg

edit
 

Image:Firestarter.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no [[Wikipedia:Fair == use rationale guideline|explanation or rationale]] as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. == i ;ov

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Move?

edit
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved: 9 yes / 2 no after 25 days Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)Reply


– I wonder if this Stephen King novel is primary topic. I don't think providing statistics of the novel are necessary, as the stats do not tell what the readers intend to surf. In fact, the unrelated Prodigy song has gotten the same views as is more popular than the film soundtrack and the miniseries sequel. Recently, I created dab pages of Start a Fire and Start the Fire. George Ho (talk) 04:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

  • Disagree on this use of stats. There are two other ways besides the DAB for readers to go from the Firestarter to the non-primary articles: 1) WP searchbox, or 2) go back to their web search and choose a different WP page. Many readers will miss a hatnote. I think it is fair to say that many more than 1,000 land on this page incorrectly because it is the prime. LaTeeDa (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose per JHJ. The point is that most people who searched for "Firestarter" apparently found what they sought without going further to the dab page. That's efficacious organization. ENeville (talk) 19:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Support. The song is getting 5467 hits. The 11,000 hits for the novel are partly due to its prime status. And there are other uses for the term. LaTeeDa (talk) 20:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
    The "partly due" was the part being addressed by the counts above. The readers who reach the novel because they wanted something else would visit the disambiguation page. That's 958 readers out of 11,038. It is obvious that most of the 5467 readers of the song did not visit the disambiguation page but rather linked to the song from another Wikipedia article or from an Internet search (neither of which would be improved by changes here). Even if, impossibly, all 5467 hit the novel article first, that would still be fewer than half of its visits. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
    I disagree with "The readers who reach the novel because they wanted something else would visit the disambiguation page." Some who get to the primary but want something different will back click there browser and choose a different topic from their web search. OR, will use the WP search box to pick exactly the topic they want, again skipping the DAB page. So, more than 1,000 will hit the primary when they wanted something else. -LaTeeDa (talk) 23:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
    Possibly. But it would have to be many, many more than 1,000 to change the primary topic by usage, and more than the page views given for the other pages would allow. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
    JHunterJ: The song has 50% viewership of the novel; that's larger than 30% or 20%. If the novel is disambiguated, then the viewership of the novel would lose 20% or 35% to the song. That's a theory. --George Ho (talk) 17:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment If we're not going to use the tools provided at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, we should just move every disambiguation page to the base name anyway, since the unevidenced guesses apply just as readily to every ambiguous title. But that's not good for the encyclopedia. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Support. It has not been demonstrated that the present arrangement meets readers' needs. Let those who oppose the move show how it would make matters worse. Pageview statistics reveal many more views for the title Firestarter, yes; but that settles nothing. We have no idea how many of those views where satisfactory to the viewers, and how many gave up once they got there and continued a different line of enquiry. Some might have then searched on "pyromania[c]" internally on Wikipedia or on Google, for example. The present DAB page shows the complexity of the situation. There is almost no reason to think that the application of "primary topic" is beneficial here, and much reason to suspect that it does harm. When in doubt, choose what misleads no one. Let those looking for a novel find a title that includes "(novel)". To do otherwise may be considered following rules for the sake of following rules. Let's not do that. Let's track the needs of readers instead, to which rules by themselves cannot be sensitive – especially the contested rules that we now have in place, which turn out to be open to abuse and misinterpretation regardless of the intentions behind them. NoeticaTea? 00:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
    The evidence given demonstrated that the present arrangement meets readers needs. Let those who want to change it show how it would improve the encyclopedia. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
So you bluntly assert, against carefully articulated argument. Please give your detailed refutation of this point that I made:

"Pageview statistics reveal many more views for the title Firestarter, yes; but that settles nothing. We have no idea how many of those views where satisfactory to the viewers, and how many gave up once they got there and continued a different line of enquiry. Some might have then searched on 'pyromania[c]' internally on Wikipedia or on Google, for example."

NoeticaTea? 13:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)Reply


Aside from the big numbers from the stats and Stephen King, how else is the novel primary? If the novel follows the guideline, then the guideline might fail to accomodate readers. --George Ho (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
Aside from the big numbers, nothing else. The big numbers are sufficient. The novel follows the guidelines now. Aside from, well, no reason, how is the novel no longer primary? WP:IAR does not mean fail to accommodate the readers who are actually be accommodated by the guidelines you're proposing to ignore. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
As a general reader of Wikipedia, I don't see Stephen King novels (Carrie (novel), The Thing Stand (novel), and The Shining (novel)) going to abandon "novel" disambiguity to be "primary". It's not the same as Children of the Corn. Even popularity of this Stephen King novel don't suffice the reason to oppose this move proposal for me, as much as you wanted to suffice. As we the supporters agreed, "Firestarter" is ambiguous... I almost thought Firecracker. --George Ho (talk) 19:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC) ((edit conflict) My mistake; I thought "The stand (novel)" exists; so I created it as a redirect. --George Ho (talk) 20:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC))Reply
What is or isn't primary for "Carrie", "The Stand" (hey, the novel is primary in your example as well), or "The Shining" may be different for what is or isn't primary for "Firestarter" (or "Salem's Lot" or "Bag of Bones"). I am also agreed that "Firestarter" is ambiguous. The difference is whether we want to follow the Wikipedia guidelines for determining which if any of the ambiguous topics is primary or whether the encyclopedia would benefit from ignoring those rules here. So far, the supporters of the move have only claimed that the existence of any ambiguity is sufficient to eliminate a primary topic, or that the titling of other book articles should carry over to the titling of all book articles, without any indication that ignoring the guidelines to get to those conclusions improves the encyclopedia. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.