Talk:Mashup novel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Rather arguably, in fact.

The article describes Pride and Prejudice and Zombies as "arguably the first", though

A Study In Emerald (combining Sherlock Holmes with the Lovecraftian mythos) dates to 2004. And that's just one of the examples I can think of off the top of my head. 75.118.50.215 (talk) 02:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

I'm unfamiliar with this work but if it doesn't use the original text or most of the plot of the original work by Conan Doyle it might be considered a
parallel work, and not a mashup. If there are other earlier examples I'd certainly like to hear of them and correct the article accordingly. AshcroftIleum (talk) 20:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Source of definition??

Ashcroftlleum: Pls provide the source for the definition of "..mashup ...according to the definition in the article"; pls see Dis'cn at "

List of fictional works using settings created by other artists".--Jbeans (talk) 09:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

So the two New York Times articles aren't good enough sources? Or do you distrust my ability to synthesize what they said and construct a sentence of my own? AshcroftIleum (talk) 12:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The definition: "A mashup novel, or mashup book (also mash-up), is a work of fiction which combines a pre-existing text, often a classic work of fiction, with a certain popular genre such as vampire or zombie narratives."
Question: Did you compose this definition? --Jbeans (talk) 09:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, based on the way it is used in the articles cited this is the minimal definition which can be constructed. Since the sources we cite rarely offer encyclopedic definitions it is up to us Wikipedians to create them. I'm not sure what's the issue here - do you disagree with the definition or do you think the article shouldn't exist? AshcroftIleum (talk) 13:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Since the sources we cite rarely offer encyclopedic definitions it is up to us Wikipedians to create them" - Omfg, how did this post not set the wiki on fire? That is the single most wrongheaded statement I've ever heard uttered on the wiki. We DO NOT create terms here. Ever. Wikipedia is a sourced-only construct. We take the material that reliable, notable folk publish and iterate them into articles here. We do not create; if anything, we compile information int a useful form. I oppose this viewpoint en toto. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1) Wikipedia policy directly applies here: >>
WP:ORIG
: "Wikipedia does not publish original research. The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by the sources." (Your two sources?—newspaper journalists—do not offer to create a new genre in literature; nor are they qualified—as authorities in literature—to do so. Pls review the 3 paras of the lede of WP:ORIG; very relevant here.)
2) No "minimal definition" needs constructing, nor should be constructed by a Wikipedia editor; such is original research. A list-class article is a good way to avoid the issue of creating OR. Pls review carefully the discussion concensus at "
List of fictional works using settings created by other artists
"; it is intended to accomodate the titles you have documented.
3) Pls know, Ashcroftlleum; I appreciate your excellent contributions to Wikipedia. I'm not castigating your good work, nor desiring to impede your efforts. The WP (policy) is sound and applies here, if you will think it through again. (Perhaps: adding a data column to the "List..." wikitable ((with a heading that identifies the 'class' {or 'style', or 'flavor', or 'type of narrative'} for each line-record)), and merging some descriptive narrative from your main article, would accomodate.)Regards--Jbeans (talk) 10:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're being really nit-picky here. Are you suggesting that identifying a certain brand of writing as a genre is some sort of principled decision to be made by literary experts? According to the Genre article in Wikipedia a genre is "the term for any category of literature, as well as various other forms of art or culture e.g. music, based on some loose set of stylistic criteria." I believe Mashup is actually one of the most easily definable and recognizable genres. And I hope you realize that every single time you write a new Wikipedia article you are defining its subject, and often using terms that usually wouldn't be stated outright anywhere because they are so obvious. everything I've written about mashups is a fact, not an opinion - these books exist, they have these elements in common, and this is the name people commonly use when discussing them. If your only quibble is that I refer to it as a genre, then fine, call it a phenomenon or a trend or whatever, though I'm sure it won't be too long before some article offhandedly calls Mashups a genre (I've already seen several references in blogs, e.g.:
"In a USA Today article this week, Grahame-Smith commented on the future of the monster mashup genre by saying there’s life left in the genre but it won’t last forever." [1]
"Since the April 2009 release of Pride And Prejudice And Zombies, the book publishing world has been inundated with books in the monster mashup genre." [2]
of course these are not notable enough so I did not cite them in the article).
Please forgive me for not wanting to create a clunky-sounding list like "
List of fictional works using settings created by other artists" which is probably inaccessible to most wikipedia users. And I don't really see the point of reducing an article which is 3 times longer than the list it contains into just a list. I appreciate your interest and concern for this issue, I just don't really see the benefit of your approach, especially considering the list mentioned above is itself in need of additional citations and may contain OR. All the Best. AshcroftIleum (talk) 17:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Pls allow me to signal> I don't find much to disagree with your explanation of 'genre'; though its broader implications—ie, in writing the next aticles of this ilk—are mysterious for me; therefore still of concern. Still, after some readin' & searchin' I note I was visioning merely the formal, historical divisions (of literature) into genre by the early Greeks and their inheritors—who became scholars of those ancients as well as authorities of their own contemporary and inherited literature. Your concerns, it seems to me, fall into a more informal, popular lexicon in discussing modern literature and other arts; a more generic use of the concept 'genre'.
However, the hard matter at hand is the question> when is it ok to ignore WP (policy) that applies; my answer, which I largely draw from observing more dedicated & hard-working Wikipedians than I, is: never (or, almost never), especially once the offending narrative is challenged. (Which doesn't mean that the problem doesn't have an acceptable answer to meet the objectives of the challenged editor.) (Pls pardon me, I am waxing here, and not necessarily 'eloquent'.)
Hard reasons require that I stow my keyboard for at least two days. Until I can play again, pls do me—and yourself—a favor: read carefully the specifications of WP:ORIG; note how they illuminate your creative project, and apply to it. Pls respond here as to how you justify WP:ORIG not applying; or much better, that you accept it does, and how we can fix it.--Jbeans (talk) 10:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to disagree on a basic fact here - You have decided that I am deliberately ignoring WP policy while I do not believe that I am. Here is a small recent addition I made to the article, which is in my eyes redundant, but might show that established sources consider mashup a genre as well:
New York Times, states that "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, by Jane Austen and Seth Grahame-Smith, captivated readers and unleashed a whole new genre."[3]
That said, I have no interest in pursuing this argument further as we have clearly reached a dead end. AshcroftIleum (talk) 18:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to learn you take this view. I feel we could reach a viable approach that doesn't ignore WP policy; the list-class article (above) is intended to be comprehensive and to include this and other alternate history or 'parallel' novels.

Pls state your reasoning: ie, why your definition doesn't violate WP:ORIG. --Jbeans (talk) 09:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've already stated my case - there's nothing in this article that a reasonable person would not be able to conclude from reading the sources cited, if you're waiting for someone outside Wikipedia to define the term and for us to copy and paste it here you've got a long wait coming, and if you find my reasoning lacking there's little enough I can do about it. AshcroftIleum (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You composed a definition for purpose of creating a new article. In scanning the above discussion, I note you have not stated clearly why you believe such activity does not violate WP policy,
WP: ORIG
. I also note your answer in response to my question, as here:
The definition: "A mashup novel, or mashup book (also mash-up), is a work of fiction which combines a pre-existing text, often a classic work of fiction, with a certain popular genre such as vampire or zombie narratives."
Question: Did you compose this definition? --Jbeans (talk) 09:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Yes, based on the way it is used in the articles cited this is the minimal definition which can be constructed. Since the sources we cite rarely offer encyclopedic definitions it is up to us Wikipedians to create them. .. ..." AshcroftIleum (talk) 13:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is this—your statement immediately above—a fair statement of why you believe your work doesn't violate WP:ORIG? If it is not, will you pls elaborate?--Jbeans (talk) 10:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jbeans here,19Oct10: AshcroftIleum, I regret you may choose to not discuss---it's not a reasonable way to work out differences. Pls consider> check with changes I propose to "
List of fictional works using settings created by other artists"---intended to make it more suitable for installing all the titles of your article; it just a beginning, and your suggestions will be appreciated.--Jbeans (talk) 10:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Sorry, I've been busy with real-world occupations. Once again, I don't believe there's much more I can say, I've been on Wikipedia long enough (and received reviewer status) and know I'm right; if you remain unconvinced there's nothing I can do about that. You're very welcome to add all the titles here to your list, but please do not delete them from here. If you believe this whole article should be deleted then please put it up for a vote. Best, AshcroftIleum (talk) 18:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion?

This isn't a real genre or style. Mashups aren't a genre; they're a technique. Can we delete this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.116.239.90 (talk) 20:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry I missed the conversation above - i would have landed on the side that considered the creation of the term to by Synthesis. Reviewer or no, the editor was flat-out wrong. I will wait one week for him/her to find a far more solid set of citations for the term before nominating the article for speedy deletion. We do not create original terms here. Ever. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of the article; title

It's not OR to try to define "mashup" with reference to reputable sources. For instance, the OED has "mash-up: noun, informal. a mixture or fusion of disparate elements: the movie becomes a weird mash-up of 1950s western and 1970s TV cop show".
However, the lead paragraph currently says "a work of fiction which combines a pre-existing text, often a classic work of fiction, with a certain popular genre such as vampire or zombie narratives", and of the 20 "Notable examples" listed in the table in the article, only one is earlier than 2009.
This is too limiting, zombies and vampires weren't the beginning or end of literary mashups, and it's not a new concept at all.

Fictional crossovers for the literary ones, like Pride and Prejudice. Barsoomian (talk) 17:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

We aren't looking for examples from the peanut gallery, Barsoomian. We are looking for
as we are explicitly prohibited from doing so. In short, the source has to call it a mash-up; we cannot Sherlock it out. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Jack,
List of fictional works using settings created by other artists have a citeable reference describing them as such in those words? None. Go and erase that article for a start then if you think this rule is paramount. Barsoomian (talk) 05:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks for stalking ove to the article. Your problematic behavior aside, my interpretation of SYN is on point. If youa re of a mind to challenge that interpretation, please feel free to initiate discussion on the appropriate noticeboard, or build a grass-roots movement to change how we run the encyclopedia over at the
Village Pump. 'til then, you aren't on solid footing here. Thanks for contributing. You may go now. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Stalking? I made no reference to anything you wrote here until you started on me. Who is stalking who? You may go now and pontificate elsewhere. See if anyone wants to help you purge WP of all the articles that fail to meet your approval. As for "problematic behaviour", let's consider such gratuitously derogatory terms like "peanut gallery", "emotionally challenged". You begin every response with a putdown. Barsoomian (talk) 06:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You know, you are probably right, Barsoomian; Maybe it's unfair to call your edits here stalking. After all, it isn't like you haven't made any actual edits to the article, right? It isn't like you haven't posted almost two dozen edits, having little to do with the article - and all of them in response to my edit. And it isn't as if you weren't watchlisting my contributions in the wiki, right?
Oh, wait - you've been doing all of the above. Sigh. I am not sure why you felt the compulsion to respond here, when you clearly have neither interest in the article nor interest in seeking a solution. It's tedious, disruptive and problematic.
That said, it isn't my job to fix all of the articles in the wiki. I am fixing this one. If you have issue with the way I choose to do so, address those issues or take your grievances elsewhere; I've been kind enough to define them for you.
Synthesis
is not allowed in Wikipedia; this is undisputed. That some has leaked in anyway is a by-product of our core principle allowing anyone to edit - whether they are fully aware how to implement our policies and guidelines or not.
Instead of focusing all your…attention seems the most polite word here...on your difficulties with me (and a strong case could be made for you to simply resist the temptation to post wherever I do), perhaps you could attend to these several other articles that you think have a synthesis problem. Of course, that's just a suggestion; I don't really care what you do, so long as you do it in a way that doesn't appear to stalk my edits. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not here in response to you, which is why I put it under a separate head. I have an interest in the subject of the article. I've been reading fantasy and SF for over 40 years. And that was the entire subject of my initial comment. Your comments were about deleting the article, mine were about improving it. I expressed no opinion at all on your views in my first post. Yet you keep having straw man arguments with me about your issues, which I really am not interested in. I should ignore you, but your continued obnoxious putdowns are designed to be provocative, and I'm afraid sometimes I respond. And your accusations of stalking, immediately after you have been busy at Wake in Fright stirring up an old edit war demonstrate your hypocrisy. "resist the temptation to post wherever I do" It's been months since I've had the misfortune to cross paths with you. Get over yourself. Barsoomian (talk) 15:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, whatever explanation gets you through the day. Now, dramahz aside, do you wish to provide to provide supporting documentation as to the provenance of the definition as well as its application to specific articles? I mean, that's what this page is for, not your tender little ego. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't "wish to provide to provide supporting documentation as to the provenance of the definition". As I said at least three times so far, I'm not interested in that question. If you bothered to read what I wrote you'd see I don't support the definition as it stands anyway. The heading I wrote my comment under is "Scope of the article; title". I realise you can't imagine the universe not revolving around you, but I'm not here to debate your issue. If I wanted to discuss your issue I would have responded to your post. If the main author of the article wants to engage with you on the definition issue he can, he's the one who put it there. You're trying to force me to defend a point I never made. Pull your head in. Barsoomian (talk) 02:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, you came here, not interested in actually proving your point of view, but instead arrived to pick a fight? Jeez. Go edit something. We're done here, until you do something wobbly again. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll respond below if anyone who's actually read my initial post has a comment. Barsoomian (talk) 03:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll make the moot point of noting that I've read your initial post. I say moot, because you do not seem prepared to accept that you are operating from a false set of assumptions. Chief among these is the idea that we editors get to define (retroactively) what serves as a certain type of fiction. Doing so is
Original Research, which you are well aware is not something we allow here. We need sources that define categories for us. We are not allowed to do so. I am unsure how to put it any simpler than that, short of using hand puppets. We cannot define a genre, or populate that genre according to our personal beliefs. I understand that you apparent inability to accept anything I say as fact may be interfering with that acceptance. I therefore recommend that you ask around. While slight variations of theme might pervade, the definitions of OR and synthesis remain constant. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

So much for "We're done here". Barsoomian (talk)

I'll respond below if anyone who's actually read my initial post has a comment. Barsoomian (talk) 17:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll again make the moot point of noting that I've read your initial post. I say 'moot', because you do not seem prepared to accept that you are operating from a false set of assumptions. Chief among these is the idea that we editors get to define (retroactively) what serves as a certain type of fiction. Doing so is
Original Research, which you are well aware is not something we allow here. We need sources that define categories for us. We are not allowed to do so. I am unsure how to put it any simpler than that, short of using hand puppets. We cannot define a genre, or populate that genre according to our personal beliefs. I understand that you apparent inability to accept anything I say as fact may be interfering with that acceptance. I therefore recommend that you ask around. While slight variations of theme might pervade, the definitions of OR and synthesis remain constant. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
I started a new section as I'm not interested in discussing your issue. You're lecturing the wrong person on the wrong subject. I've told you that a dozen times. Now you're just being disruptive. Barsoomian (talk)

I'll respond below only on "Scope of the article; title". If you want to discuss the legitimacy of the definition, see #Source of definition??. If you want to discuss deleting the article, see #Deletion?. Barsoomian (talk) 05:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed section

I have removed the 'Notable examples' section from the article, replacing it with a 'See also' section, pointing to other, notable examples of the genre that can be linked within Wikipedia. I am not rendering an opinion as to the surviving examples' weight as articles; I am seeking to make the article look neater and less a cruft magnet for anything that peripherally can be noted as being part the genre. I am open to discussion on the topic, but its in everyone's best interest to keep lists out of articles. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "See also" section is just a list as well, except not in table form and without the notes that described each work. The barrier to adding cruft is actually lower as all a driveby editor has to do is paste a link in rather than fill out the information in the table. At a minimum titles mentioned, in your list or whatever format, should have the year of publication. It's important to show the evolution of the genre. Barsoomian (talk) 03:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) While it is indeed still a list, it is a list of linked articles, and not a sad collection of unlinked (read: uncited) books that might (or might not) fit the genre. I refuse to give that sort of cruft a house to live in with a veneer of respectability - everything looks more genuine when inserted into a table. If you want to add the year of publication, can you explain why you feel the year of publication is important? Since they are linked, the interested reader will quickly be able to follow their bliss and learn all they want. And as to the importance of showing the evolution of the genre, I am not sure how that is accomplished by dating the books within the genre. Do you have specific and explicit references that track the evolution of the genre? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Evolution is sequence of changes, you need a chronology to see that. Making a lot of analysis about it might be OR, but simple ordering isn't. Sure, the reader can click on 10 or 20 links and work it out. You could have untitled links and make the titles a surprise too. Your list still needs a default order and chronological is the obvious criterion. I won't edit the list/table now, the editors who laid it out may have more to say. Barsoomian (talk)
I'll ask the question again: do you have specific and explicit references which denote the "evolution" of the genre or of the importance of a chronology? It would seem to me that far more important would be a text explanation of how the genre evolved with each new additional publication. I was unable to find such; maybe you will have better luck. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was speaking of the general case. Evolution is a process that proceeds through time, one work affecting subsequent. There is a text explanation of the evolution of this genre already in the "History" section of the current article. It's conventional to mention a book's year of publication when discussing it to give it context. Look at some random genres, like
Locked room mystery and Sword and sorcery. The lists of books there all have the year, and author. Also, the heading "See also" would be expected to be to related genres, not a list of members of that genre. The articles mentioned have lists under heads "Seminal works" and "Authors and works", for example. Barsoomian (talk) 16:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

I see your point regarding the contents of the 'See also' section; I suggest that a brief (ie. one sentence description) of each wikilinked article - and not the entirety the list (for without cited reviews, we have no idea whether they actually fit the genre or not) - be placed within the 'Exemplars' section. I am not sure which genre's are closely related, though a solid argument could be made for those of parody and satire. I don't think horror will do, unless we are prepared to list every genre of the original classic. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"See also" could just be omitted if the books listed there now are in a different section. Several related or overlapping "genres" (using the term loosely) are mentioned in the text already:
Zombie (fictional). I think that's enough. Barsoomian (talk) 16:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on

Mashup (book). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ
for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:33, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on

Mashup (book). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ
for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mashup_novel&oldid=1203025812"