User talk:DionysosProteus/Elements

I'm copying this message to Mike Klassen as it bears on the subject of this article, and I think it might be useful to invite comments from other editors.

I see that you've moved a load of articles to the (fiction) form--Narrator, Plot (narrative), Exposition and a few others. While I understand your desire for consistency, I'm not sure they have been really thought through from the POV of a wikipedia user - they seem, rather, to be serving your exposition of your own ideas about writing. What I mean is, for example, Plot (narrative) is unambiguous, whereas plot (fiction) may refer to a secret plan that is not real (like a fictional version of the Gunpowder 'plot', off the top of my head). Narrator doesn't require a disambiguation. Same goes for First-person narrative (fiction), Third-person narrative (fiction), Unreliable narrator (fiction) You've organised Fiction into your own categories, though I'm not aware of anyone else in the scholarly community using these; they seem very idiosyncratic, and unsourced in every case, yet they're appearing on almost all of these pages; this makes it seem like an act of self-promotion, rather than detailing existing knowledge. It makes an appearance in Dramatic structure, Setting (fiction), Story arc, Plot hole, Plot device, Theme (literature), Style (fiction), Fiction writing... really, I didn't imagine the list would get that long when I began it! Point of view (literature) was there to distinguish it from cinematic POV, which is also fictional, so your move makes it less precise and increases the potential for confusion. Imagery isn't only found in fiction. The only one that appears to have originated as (fiction) is Scene (fiction), for which that designation is the least appropriate (it being a specifically dramatic term that is used for other forms metaphorically at best). I see that I'm not the only one to have been concerned by the general tenor of many of these changes. I understand that you have a particular point of view and that your contributions aim to assist fledgling writers (I presume), but I'm not sure Wikipedia is the place for this. Can I reiterate the plea that you cite other sources than your own web article. There is a great deal to object to in that scheme, but this isn't a collective blog and our job as editors isn't to debate these things, but rather to reference already-existing debates beyond this project. I see that you've tried to offer a caveat on most of the articles to the effect that 'the debate is on-going', which is certainly a step in the right direction, but it needs to be cited and not original research. Please don't misunderstand me--I'm not trying to tell you you're wrong or to convince you to abandon your beliefs, nor, indeed, to discourage you from contributing (which would be the worst outcome); but the principles of the project are there for a reason and the only integrity we have is in a strict adherence to them. Only today I saw Wikipedia mocked on The Daily Show (we get it a day later) for its unreliability. All I'm asking is that if you want to use this scheme, please cite scholarly works that substantiate it. I don't feel its appropriate for me to go straight to a request to have the pages moved back, as that doesn't give you an opportunity to present your reasoning. Instead, please take a fresh look at the project you're pursuing overall and try to assess it objectively. I'm going to copy this to some of the talk pages, as I think the issues affect so many articles that its best to initiate a debate. Regards, DionysosProteus 01:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)