Help talk:Guidelines

From The Kim Stanley Robinson Encyclopedia

Contents 1 Items that need to be decided on as a group 2 In-universe vs. ext-universe 3 Name of Site 4 Public access vs. Private access 5 Logo 6 Copyright? 7 Licencing 8 Policies and Guidelines 9 Appealing to popular notions vs. promoting more accurate ones

Items that need to be decided on as a group

• Name of site
• In-universe or ext-universe. If we make it all inclusive, we need to decide a means of distinguishing between the two (formatting, separate articles clearly demarkated, etc?). Suggestions welcome.
• Editing policy. Open or closed? Personally I'd be in favour of leaving it open unless it becomes a problem. If Wiki-freakin-pedia can handle it then I think our lowly KSR database can, at least for now.
• Site logo. I've just done a quickie which you can see in the corner, but many more talented designers than me probably have some good ideas.
• Anything else you can think of.

Hopefully we can put up some 'official' guidelines and policies soon.

Carlos

I'm gonna make headers below under which we can each post our opinions/votes topic-by-topic. thoreaubred 05:21, 25 July 2006 (MDT)

In-universe vs. ext-universe

I vote: Ext-universe. I've explained my position at length on The Demimonde so I'll try to summarize as briefly as possible here: The only reasons to limit ourselves to in-universe are for trivial fun and aesthetics. Whereas, there is incredible value in taking this opportunity to devote a great deal of attention and study to Robinson's work from the outside, as it is relevant to the real world. Robinson has always been distinguished from most other SF by fans and critics for the seriousness and relevance of his work, and I think this project as the first fan project of such scope and ambition devoted to his work should do justice to his work by exploring its full potential. Some literature is mere entertainment, and some goes further, and a good measure of which is which is to look at the nature of the attention given it. It's time to pay Robinson the compliment of approaching his body of work as a serious contribution to what I call "the dialogue of history", in which writers who are thoughtful and willing make a permanent contribution to the philosophical, political, social consciousness of the world, as opposed to approaching it the way we would Star Trek or Star Wars, as an escapist fantasy world we would like to pretend to live in for our own entertinament and aesthetic pleasure. Robinson himself has often quoted Shelley: "Poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world." I believe Robinson's conception of utopian literature is exactly the kind of literature that the 21st century needs, and its importance needs to be acknowledged and built upon, so that it ends up in its proper place in the dialogue of history rather than in the world of escapist sci-fi geekdom. Another Robinson quote: "Don't go getting escapist, sci-fi fans!" thoreaubred 05:21, 25 July 2006 (MDT)

I can pretty much agree with all that, but obviously 'in-universe' stuff needs to be able to be talked about as such as well, so we need to distinguish between the two. Suggestion: All article titles that are 'in-universe' (eg. John Boone, Nicosia, etc.) are to be written primarily in-universe with additional ext-universe stuff to be added in a separate, clearly labelled section at the bottom of the article. All non-internal articles (KSR, Literature analysis, etc.) can be written 'ext-universe' entirely. The only confusion I can see is when something is both (eg. Olympus Mons), but I think it won't really be a problem because a)KSR's reality is pretty much grounded in the real world, so facts and figures should apply universally, and b)no one should be checking this database as a reliable source of Martian geography anyway. As long as this is all made quite clear in the guidelines, then I think it could work. Carlos 19:23, 25 July 2006 (MDT)

I too think that it should be clearly distinguished what was written in the books, and what information is drawn from real world sources. I like Carlos' suggestion that we should put all the ext-universe information in a seperate subsection at the bottom of the article. This way, there can't be the mistake of someone reading a lenghty article about something and think that KSR must have waxed on endlessly about said subject, but when that person goes to read the books he finds very little if any of the information mentioned in the Wiki article. So, for an article: first list or detail any information about the subject that was presented in the novels, then: have a subsection like "Further Reading in the Real World" or "Real World Analogues". For example: an article on Rickover nuclear reactors would be fairly brief stating merely that they were used by the First Hundred to power the original colony as well as later colonies. The "Real World Analogue" section could go into more detail about what type of nuclear reactor a Rickover actually is, where and how they're used, or if it's a future technology (i.e. not yet fully realized or mainstream) it's current state of progress could be detailed with a description of it's future potential. So, all the information in the same article, clearly defined what was actually mentioned in the books and what wasn't. Very similar to the "Trivia" subsections in many other Wiki articles.--Sax russell the green 13:16, 28 July 2006 (MDT)

I did a quick article for Rickover. Probably more information for the Real World stuff than there is for the fiction, but it's an example nonetheless. --Sax russell the green 12:35, 29 July 2006 (MDT)

I put the 'Meta' icon next to the 'real-world' stuff on the Rickover page. Do you think it's a good idea to get into the habit of doing this? Personally, I do. Carlos 15:05, 29 July 2006 (MDT)

My currrent view is that 'in-universe' stuff should be identified with the Mars ID icon

, whereas out-of-universe stuff doesn't really need the 'Meta' icon. This is because:

• With a in-universe identifier, the reader knows immediately from what POV the material is written.
• Out-of-universe stuff is obvious from context, and is helped by Sax's 'Related info' sub-category where appropriate.
• Out-of-universe is kind of the 'default' voice for the site. Only where it differs is an ID required.
• The baseline table being worked on at Template:Test will clearly identify Mars-related articles. Only in-universe stuff needs specific identification.

So, basically, for each fictional world, we need to create a seperate icon, which is then placed at the top of each 'in-universe' article for that work.

Agree??

Carlos 16:51, 1 August 2006 (MDT)

I'm used to Wikipedia's external perspective: e.g. "Gandalf is a fictional character in J. R. R. Tolkien's fantasy works The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, where he appears as an archetypal wizard," instead of "Gandalf was the wisest of the Maiar, known as Olórin in Valinor.". So instead of writing "Frank Chalmers was the leader of the American contingent of the first colony on Mars.", if we used an external perspective it would be "Frank Chalmers was a character in the novel Red Mars. He was the leader of the American contingent of the first Martian colony...". -- Jeandré, 2006-08-04t11:40z

That's because Wikipedia has to clarify what the heck we're talking about at the start of every article. When you're doing an in-depth breakdown of a known work, an in-universe perspective is better when it's appropriate. We don't really want every character article to start with 'So-and-so is a character in the KSR's Mars trilogy' do we? Plus, once you actually go 'into the world' it makes it much easier to talk about motivations and explanations for events. Why did the Martian revolution happen? Well because KSR wanted to make a comment about human societies and tell a good yarn. Yes, but what we're really interested in is what were the social and political factors in the fictional world that led to this course of history? Treating as though it were 'real' gives it much more integrity as a work of fiction, as it assumes that there is a rational and realistic basis for all the goings-on. Now, that is not to say that the ext-universe info isn't relevant or important. On the contrary, it's just as important, but should be a seperate section (such as the Related info section here). The primary POV when talking about the character/place with respect to the happenings in the story needs to be internal perspective to give it any real cohesion. Thanks for raising this though, as posting a response has forced me to elucidate to myself why I think the way I do.

Having said that, I'm a lot more relaxed about not being so fussy about making the distinction (with icons or whatnot), as I'm comfortable that it's actually pretty obvious when you are talking 'in-universe'. I thought it might be jarring to jump from one to the other, but from looking around at other Wikis, I don't think this is the case. Carlos 06:18, 4 August 2006 (MDT)

The other thing is that even before we chose the wiki format for this project we've been dicussing the project for a long time and it has been conceived of as a largely in-universe encyclopedia, a fan site with its own mission as opposed to "Wikipedia: The KSR Edition". The debate over in-universe vs. ext-universe is more a matter of how to organize the information, but even those of us who have argued the most pro ext-universe positions have not had in mind "Frank Chalmers is a fictional character in the Mars trilogy...". thoreaubred 06:24, 4 August 2006 (MDT)

Name of Site

I suggest "The Kim Stanley Robinson ________" Fill in the blank with "Database", "Encyclopia", "Knowledge Base", or whatever else. I think it should clear and simple. Names like "The Demimonde" are fun for a message board that needs to feel like a place with a certain atmosphere, but this project is more like an encycplodia and should have a simple, neutral name. thoreaubred 05:21, 25 July 2006 (MDT)

How about "Kim Stanley Robinson: MARS and Beyond..."? I think we need to emphasise the Mars thing, as it will be the main focus of the database, and the primary 'in-universe' article set. Also people searching the net for a Mars resource will find it eaiser. And I think it's got a nice ring to it. Carlos 19:03, 25 July 2006 (MDT)

The meta namespace is a bit long: The_Kim_Stanley_Robinson_Encyclopedia:Copyright. I'd suggest this namespace be shortened to "KSRe" or "KSR". If however the long namespace name "The_Kim_Stanley_Robinson_Encyclopedia" is kept, I'd suggest creating shortcuts so that KSRe:C or KSR:C takes you to The_Kim_Stanley_Robinson_Encyclopedia:Copyright. As for the site's full name, I'd suggest the removal of the "The ". -- Jeandré, 2006-08-18t11:49z

The meta namespace is set by the name of the site - they are the same. Feel free to add re-directs to anything you think might be useful though.

Why remove the 'The'? What's your rationale for this? Carlos 06:22, 18 August 2006 (MDT)

Are you sure? While the default meta namespace for a MediaWiki site is the full title (http://vexillium.wikia.com/wiki/Wikivex_-_The_Free%2C_Online%2C_Vexillium_Encyclopedia:Community_Portal), "The Firefly and Serenity Database"'s meta namespace is just "firefly": http://firefly.wikia.com/wiki/Firefly:Community_Portal

As for the "The ", I don't see why it's necessary since it's usually (2 above examples notwithstanding) excluded online: the CIA's "The World Factbook" is at https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/ not https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/The_World_Factbook -- Jeandré, 2006-08-20t10:49z

Public access vs. Private access

Private. I think we should limit access to those of us from The Demimonde who have been around a while and have been involved in planning so far, and have shown seriousness and committment. We could make it clear that if anyone else wants to be involved they can contact us and explain the nature of their interest and then evaluate whether they are serious and committed enough to this enormous project which we want to be impeccably accurate. As I said on The Demimonde, Wikipedia is able to survive being public because it has so many users that the articles are watched by enough users that any problem edits can be quickly noticed and reversed. That's not the case here, so the few of us who are going to stick around here regularly would end up having to watch over all the articles constantly if and when strangers come along and begin editing them. This project was not originally conceived as a public wiki, and there's no reason any random person should have access to edit it on a whim when they can already edit the Wikipedia articles about KSR or the Mars trilogy if they want to. This is a project for people who have demonstrated serious committment to organize accurate information. The wiki technology is our means, not our end. thoreaubred 05:21, 25 July 2006 (MDT)

I hear what you're saying, but I think we should try an open system, at least to begin with. It's easy to monitor recent changes and revert a page with one or two clicks if necessary.I really think that if it's too restrictive then potential collaborators will be put off if they have to jump through too many hoops just to provide some basic help. We should definitely make it that they have to create an account, but not necessarily that they need admin approval before editing. I hardly think it's likely that someone who is prepared to make a contribution is likely to make the site worse as a result of their efforts, and anyone who strays from the established [Help:Guidelines Guidelines] can be prompty reminded. I think they'll get it pretty quick. The only real worry, as I can see, is from genuine spammers or malicious intent, but as long as it's relatively infrequent then it's not really a big deal to revert there edits and ban their IP. And, as I said, if it does become a problem, then a later change in policy is always available to us. I can't really think of a good reason why it shouldn't be 'open to registered accounts', at least while it's new and needs all the help it can get. Anyone else think this way? Carlos 19:13, 25 July 2006 (MDT)

I have configured it so that only people who have registered an account can edit pages. Until we get a significant amount of abuse (which, IMO, is unlikely) then this should do as a restriction. Once we have established the editing guidelines, then we can make sure all new users get familiar with them before editing anything. Carlos 18:53, 31 July 2006 (MDT)

Ok I realized only just now that there's no need for Carlos to permit you acces, registering is free. So I'll get myself accustomed with the Wiki editing processes and I'll start contributing shortly. For the time being I don't think it's necessary for us to worry about private/public access. When the site is complete enough to warrant an "official" release campaign we'll see about restricting things more, like any candidate sending a personal notification to those who are already members first. --Orodromeus 03:58, 2 August 2006 (MDT)

Logo

Just playing round with some ideas. What do you think of this kind of thing:

Obviously, it still needs work, but do you like the concept? I've removed the Mars titling, but Mars is still strongly featured, but as part of greater whole. Also, the Red-Green-Blue band is, I think, a reasonable tip of the hat to the premiere work. Love to hear your comments. Carlos 05:10, 31 July 2006 (MDT)

Or what about:

I know what you Americans are going to say: "That's not how you spell Encyclopedia" Carlos 05:50, 31 July 2006 (MDT)

Speaking of which, we're going to want to have consistent spelling, so are we going to use American english or non-American? It seems to me that since KSR is American, that we should use American spellings. thoreaubred 06:08, 31 July 2006 (MDT)

In any case, an extra "C" wouldn't hurt. Encylopedia? --69.154.64.146 10:27, 31 July 2006 (MDT)

Ouch! Carlos 15:23, 31 July 2006 (MDT)

Better? Carlos 17:27, 31 July 2006 (MDT)

Obviously my opinions about how prominent Mars should be are already known. But if I'm in the minority on that, I should probably just be graciously seeking compromises that I can live with rather than being too stubborn. As far as compromises go, I do like how the half-Earth half-Mars thing looks, but the Red/Green/Blue colors on top of it makes the overall logo more like 2/3 Mars trilogy, 1/3 everything else. And the planet theme in general evokes space exploration and looking down on planets from space, when the truth is most of his novels take place on Earth, and even the Mars trilogy is a story about living on a planet, not about space travel. These are just my immediate thoughts, not an argument against this logo. In general you've seemed to adapt everything toward my preferences so far (going from "Kim Stanley Robinson: MARS" to "Kim Stanley Robinson Encyclopedia", switching to American spelling, going back from red ?s to red links, etc.) pretty quickly without much discussion, so I hope my longwindedness isn't making my opinion overly dominant. I'm just getting my opinions on record and hoping everyone else will do the same so that we can see what the majority thinks. thoreaubred 18:29, 31 July 2006 (MDT)

Yeah, I tried to make the Mars stuff more implicit. The RGB band is not necessarily Mars-related, but it will invoke it to those in the know, which I think is a pretty reasonable compromise. And I don't think an image of a planet implies 'space travel' any more than an image of a country implies international travel. KSR's novels are largely about 'worlds' and have a 'Green' slant a lot of the time, so an image of the Earth is a suitable icon of this. The Mars half implies that we are not limited to just our own planet when it comes to sustainability and preservation. Carlos 18:42, 31 July 2006 (MDT)

All good points. thoreaubred 19:06, 31 July 2006 (MDT)

Much better. The Grammar Nazi within is pleased.--Sax russell the green 20:57, 31 July 2006 (MDT)

Copyright?

Maybe CreativeCommons attribution, noncommercial, share alike 2.5? -- Jeandré, 2006-08-02t21:15z

Jeandre, welcome! How did you find us here, are you a lurker at the Demimonde? Haven't seen you around since I used to post on usenet years ago. I hope you find our wiki here more inviting than you found ezboard.

Since you bring it up, do you know much about the differences in the various licences we have the option of using? I would like something a little bit different than Wikipedia, where someone can copy the exact text of an article and go put it on their site. Say someone like Frederic Jameson writes a book about the Mars trilogy, so he's writing about a copyrighted work--I could use his book for research, refer to his insights, paraphrase, quote him in small amounts, but I couldn't go take his entire book and post it somewhere. How does that work, when someone writes a critical work about someone else's copyrighted work? If possible, I would like to make it so that people can use the information from this site but not the exact content. In the future I want to allow room for essays, original research, fan art, fan fiction, etc., and I don't want people's original research/criticism, etc. to be fair game the way everything on Wikipedia is. Unfortunately I don't know much about copyright and all these various licences. Is something like what I'm describing possible for us? thoreaubred 17:15, 2 August 2006 (MDT)

By the way, what you linked to sounds close to what I'm talking about, but it also sounds like someone could take someone's essay and alter it slightly and distribute the altered version. What I want is, if someone writes and essay, that's their essay, and if it gets distributed anywhere it has their name on it and it's unchanged. thoreaubred 17:22, 2 August 2006 (MDT)

I've posted at the Demimonde but I haven't been there in a long time. Found this wiki via Wikipedia.

A critical work of someone else's copyrighted work, using only fair use quotes, can have an "all rights reserved" copyright or be copylefted.

You could use something like a no derivative works CC license, but I'm not sure how that would work on a wiki. A share alike license allows anyone to "alter, transform, or build upon this work" but also to "copy, distribute, display" it which you don't want. I've only been involved with copyleft wikis (Wikimedia projects, Wikia, Firefly) so I don't know what kind of other licenses you can use that allows people to edit pages. Maybe find something that allows you to "alter, transform, or build upon this work" on this wiki, but not copy? What happens if the site moves?

If this wiki uses a share alike license for the pages edited by the community, the "essays, original research, fan art, fan fiction, etc.," could be in a namespace (user?) that uses an "all rights reserved" copyright.

I'd really like to move the Mars timeline to this wiki so others can improve it. It's currently lincensed under only CC's attribution, noncommercial, share alike 1.0. -- Jeandré, 2006-08-04t11:17z

My concern is not so much people distributing and displaying information from here, but them taking complete articles, altering them, and then distributing the altered versions. I'm also speaking only hypothetically about far down the road when we have original research on the site, such as critical essays. We're still debating whether to leave the wiki open for the public to edit, but some day we hope to include things such as critical essays and fan art on the site, in which case I assume we would lock those pages from editing and they would be credited to their authors. If someone writes an essay signed with their name as the author, I don't want someone taking that, changing a few things, and putting it on their own site, either without the author's name or with the author's name despite the changes. Do you know if it would be possible to have specific pages on the site with a different license than the rest of the site, so that the wiki content would have one, and published cricism and fan art would have another?

As for whether someone can take a wiki article and change is and distribute it elsewhere as they can with Wikipedia articles, we haven't yet worked out a consensus about whether we want that or not. So I'm speaking more about future concerns involved submitted essays and articles by a single author that are published on the site. thoreaubred 05:27, 4 August 2006 (MDT)

Personally, I find that to be a rather ugly timeline. Starting with The Big Bang and including 13 billion years of universal history seems pretentious in the extreme! Plus, the formatting feels cluttered and not very accessible. However, it does have lots of useful information, so as long as we can alter it severely it would be a good starting point. I'm not sure I understand the licencing though. If we start with that timeline and then edit so much that it bears no real resemblance to the original, do we have to credit the original author still?

The other approach is to start by copying in the bare bones chronologies from the back of each book, and then fleshing them out over time. Carlos 06:55, 4 August 2006 (MDT)

What's this about chronologies in the backs of the books? Do the European editions have timelines in them?! thoreaubred 07:00, 4 August 2006 (MDT)

Mine does (this version). Here's a scan of the inside of the last paper page of Red Mars:

Red Mars basic chronology

So this is only on the international version? Interesting. Carlos 07:21, 4 August 2006 (MDT)

Correct, there's no timeline in the North American edition. There are however, various maps and charts which I've heard are not in the international edition. I would like to can them but that's a case where I'm pretty worried about copyright and not being able to claim fair use. Although, I examined the copyright page and nowhere in the book does it say who even created the maps, let alone that they're copyrighted. However, there is a general statement on the page that all content contained in the pages of the book is the property of Bantam and cannot be reproduced or transmmitted in any form. thoreaubred 16:26, 4 August 2006 (MDT)

Yay I didn't know this, that's great! That's the Voyager edition with the single-colour covers? Pretty much corresponds to my timeline. The 2062 is 2061 in Green & Blue. Don't remember a date for the Areophany group departure. I'll soon upload my timeline page, quite incomplete, to my geocities space. --Orodromeus 07:25, 4 August 2006 (MDT)

Wait, is the timeline from the Voyager Classics edition or the standard Voyager edition? Oro, which do you have? thoreaubred 16:26, 4 August 2006 (MDT)

No I was referring to Carlos' scan: you can see through the back of the page, it's a Voyager edition, though I don't know which one. I have the standard US edition, with the Dixon covers, and no timeline like this there. Surely KSR didn't write this (he hates putting specific dates). --Orodromeus 06:18, 8 August 2006 (MDT)

So for now it's "all rights reserved", copyright belonging to the contributor, but altering articles allowed on this site?

If so, the by-nc-sa 1.0 timeline (which allows one to "alter, transform, or build upon this work", "copy, distribute, display" it, and requires such altered works to also allow others to continue doing so) shouldn't be moved here unless a similar license is used here. -- Jeandré, 2006-08-04t19:40z

Licencing

Has anyone thought more about what kind of license to use on this site? I would like to settle on something soon, because once we start putting content in articles, like the partial bio on the Kim Stanley Robinson article, it's only a matter of time before other sites start copying it and taking credit for it, the way so many sites copy entire Wikipedia articles. Especially with the link on Wikipedia making people aware of the site.

I'm leaning toward Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5, which would allow people to distribute information from the site but without altering it, but require them to give credit to the site. The only problem is, we can't very well tell people that they can't alter the information on the site while remaining open to public editing. Unfortunately we never resolved the issue of whether to be public or private. I know Oro agreed with me that that editing access should be private, so that's two votes for that. Carlos and Sax, did you both favor public editing? If so, we have a tie on that issue, as it seems that the four of us are the only people steadily involved with the project at this time.

If we remain open to public editing, we could still use Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5. But are we comfortable with content from the site being distributed in altered form, but still credited to us? Especially in the future if we get around to posting actual essays and original analysis?

In any case, we should move the issue of whether this is a public wiki, and the question of what license we're going to use, back to the front burner. Everyone take a look at those two Creative Commons licenses and please post your thoughts. thoreaubred 00:12, 16 August 2006 (MDT)

Since we are sourcing information from KSRs books, and liberally using other people's artwork etc, then I don't think we can justify being too precious with our contents. Having said that, I think we need to make a distinction between purely informational articles, and critical opinion articles. So far, we are concentrating on the former, and I think the free-for-all license is most appropriate for that, as all we're doing is re-organising and consolidating existing information anyway. However, at some point I imagine that various people will want to contribute 'essays' about KSR's work. Thoreaubred, I seem to remember you suggesting that you had some material like this to offer at some point. In this, case then I think the article is the property of the specific author, who should be clearly identified and they maintain copyright over that work. The article should also have a disclaimer stating that this is the opinion of so-and-so specific author and is not necessarily reflective of the views of other contributors to this project. So, can we split the licensing like this, and have informational articles as 'free', and opinion/essay articles as 'copyrighted'? Carlos 01:32, 16 August 2006 (MDT)

Now that you put it that way, I would imagine that we should be able to that. Like, we would have the Creative Commons license covering the whole site, but with a disclaimer that certain content on the site has a different license as noted. Then anything we want to exist as its own work, such as an essay, would have its own license information accompanying it. All this time I was thinking our problem is to figure out how to have original reasearch such as essays alongside wiki content that, as you say, just existing information reorganized--but suddenly it seems pretty simple to me. We'd better make sure that we're "allowed" to have a license that only covers some parts of the site, and I'll look further into that just to make sure, but I can't imagine why that wouldn't be possible. In which case, I guess the "free-for-all" license would be fine. thoreaubred 02:35, 16 August 2006 (MDT)

According to http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Project:Namespaces you can easily do this by having different licences for different namespaces (for the WikiMedia site it's GFDL for all namespaces except for "Help:" which is public domain). KSRE could therefor use CC by-nc-SA for the article namespace, and CC by-nc-ND for user namespace (and allow subpages for a single userpage). -- Jeandré, 2006-08-16t08:54z

That sounds like a good option. So personal essays etc, would all be within a user's subpages in the User namespace. They could still be linked to from the main article space, and have a table of contents in the main space, but the essays themselves would exist in the author's personal 'subdirectory', as it were. Great idea. Carlos 14:59, 16 August 2006 (MDT)

Yeah, I was aware of that option, but I'm not so sure we would want all the user-provided content to be hidden away on invididuals' user pages. However, maybe we could create a namespace (are we able to create namespaces) parallel to the main encyclopedia namespace that has all the essays, etc. on it, and is more closely integrated with the main encyclopedia. Like how early on we talked about having multiple versions of articles for separating in-universe content from out-of-universe content. We can have alternate versions of articles in this other namespace, so that there is a main Mars_trilogy article on the main namespace, and then also [OtherNamespace]:Mars_trilogy ([OtherNamepace] of course being whatever we call that namespace, without the brackets) which we could link to from the Mars_trilogy article. thoreaubred 15:16, 16 August 2006 (MDT)

Having essays on userpages shouldn't have any effect on how tighly integrated the articles are with the main namespace articles. It just provides a clear demarkation on whose work it is (ie. your essay would be at User:thoreaubred/essay1.) All links, contents pages, navigation etc. would still be within the main article space, but only the essay itself would be within yours. That seems like a perfect solution to me - no reason to go creating new namespaces just for the sake of it. Carlos 15:22, 16 August 2006 (MDT)

Hm, I guess we can decide for sure if and when it even comes time to set up pages for essays and such. I suppose if they were located on userpage there could still be articles or sections of articles with a directory of links to them. thoreaubred 16:17, 16 August 2006 (MDT)

As for whether the site is publicly editable, there are different options available:

1. New users can register an account freely, but we set editing priveliges higher so that they need to be specifically added to an 'Editors' group by an Admin.
2. New users cannot create an account, but need to apply to an Admin to create an account for them. They will then have standard editing privileges.
3. As it is now, where anyone can come along, create an account and start making edits.
4. New users can create and account and edit pages, but Admins will regularly 'protect' pages that we don't want newbies to mess with.

There's probably other approaches we can take too, but those are the basic options I've thought of. I'd be in favour of leaving it as is for now, and then changing to option 1 or 2 if problems start to occur. I'm completely in support of keeping it restricted according to thoreaubred's original vision, but I also think that it would be silly to implement a bunch of restrictions immediately before anyone has even really contributed. I guess that makes me a 'Wait and see'. Carlos 01:32, 16 August 2006 (MDT)

---

Hello all! My "vote" for content licencing is the GFDL, for the simple reason that this would permit moving and adapting information between this wiki and wikipedia, amongst others. Based on my experiences on the doom wiki, I think this is a really valuable ability.

Aside from that flexibility, I think a liberal licence is essential. Here's my opinion on the various CC terms:

no-derivations

this seems a very bad idea for a wiki. Who has the right to derive? If no-one, how can more than one editor edit a particular article? All the information is derived in a sense from the worlds that KSR has created, and I don't think I would have the right to say someone couldn't expand on my work, either here or elsewhere.

non-commercial

In general, this doesn't work in my experience. What is "commercial"? Can someone syndicate the content? What if they add ads? What if we want/need ads on this wiki? In the free software world, there are loads of grey areas relating to distributing software. If something is non-commercial, can you sell CD copies of it? What about covering production costs? etc. etc. The only vaguely sensible argument in favour of this clause for wiki-content is stopping people profiting from our work. But nobody could say, publish the content in a book anyway, without running foul of KSR's trademarks. I'm very confident the publishers would swiftly deal with any such attempt.

attribution

I'd live with this one, but generally, attribution is another tricky thing to quantify. We don't want to sign the articles in the main space. Who has to give attribution and in what conditions? Intra-wiki? Extra-wiki? Do they credit an author, all authors, just the wiki, what?

share-alike

I'm very keen on share-alike. Not much to say here, really: I want anything I use to have the same freedoms I've enjoyed creating it :)

So, if the GFDL was a no-go, my second choice would be http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/ .

-- Jon 16:41, 25 October 2006 (MDT)

Hi Jon, I pretty much agree with your suggestions. Just remember, we'd like to have a 'personal essays/files' section under each user's User namespace page (see the Guidelines for more) which would need to be under a different licence to the main content, as per each individual user's preference for their material.

FYI, I'll be out on holiday for the next 3 weeks, so don't expect any input from me. I'll be back into it in early December. Take care, all. Carlos 21:15, 12 November 2006 (MST)

Policies and Guidelines

Let's start discussing Policies and Guidelines to post on the site so that new people who are out of the loop with it comes to past planning can get an idea of what we're about.

• What The Kim Stanley Robinson Encyclopedia is not. Wikipedia has a page about What Wikipedia is not, where they explain many of their unfortunate policies such as "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought." Perhaps we should have out own take on that page, with items such as "The KSR Encyclopedia is not Wikipedia" in which we explain that our use of the wiki technology is more means than end and that we are a fan site with our own vision, such as allowing in-universe articles that don't begin "Frank Chalmers is a fictional character in the Mars trilogy", and that we do allow for original thought, provided it is identified as such in an appropriate section, and so on.
• Editing policy. Perhaps those who believe we should not be open to the public can write up an example policy explaining to visitors of the site why we're not open to the public but how they can apply to be involved.
  • One idea I have is a variation on the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" statement at the top of Wikipedia and the various wikis on Wikia, for example, at Wookieepedia: "Welcome to Wookieepedia, a Star Wars encyclopedia that anyone can edit." The phrase "anyone can edit" is usually linked to a page that explains how to edit. What I would do is have our statement say something like, "Welcome to The Kim Stanley Robinson Encyclopedia, a site created and edited by fans of Kim Stanley Robinson." The phrase "fans of Kim Stanley Robinson" would then link to a page explaining who we are, why editing is limited to us and not open to the public, but how they can sign up to be involved. On that page we could explain something like, "If you just read your first Kim Stanley Robinson novel last week, this site may not be for you", (and that could possibly link to a more detailed explanation of why we believe it may not be for them), "but if you consider yourself a serious and knowledegable fan and are interested in being involved in the project, you can contact us and let us know what it is you think you would bring to the project." We could even have, as one of the things they need to write to us about, "If you are applying to edit because you have a specific edit in mind that you would like to do, let us know what what it is. If you were able to start editing today, what is the first thing you would do?"

I'll expand on these thoughts later. thoreaubred 17:55, 4 August 2006 (MDT)

That all sounds well thought out. I guess the sections of the Guidelines would be:

• Editing policy
  • Who is welcome/What KSREncylopedia is not/etc.
  • How to apply
  • Links to Help guides and editing tutorials (or should this be a seperate thing?)
• Style and content
  • In-universe and Real world explanation
  • Capitalisation, italicisation practices, as well as measurement standards (I vote Metric!) and English standards (I reluctantly concede to American).
  • Consistency of formatting. An description of the templates to be used on various pages.
  • An explanation of the Category structure.
• Guide to making suggestions/changes to the look and feel/structure of the site.
  • Links to Appearance and Development pages.

There's probably others, but that's just off the top of my head to get things going. Oh, and we should probably have something about copyright of our work. Considering how much we'll be borrowing from other sources, we'd be pretty lousy to get all precious about our copyrights, but maybe we should say something about if you use articles from here elsewhere then they need to credit/link back to the site? Carlos 19:44, 4 August 2006 (MDT)

"If you just read your first Kim Stanley Robinson novel last week, this site may not be for you". We should be careful to make a distinction between potential editors and casual readers. The problem with that statement is that it is true for potential editors, but not for readers. We should make sure that people who just want to use the site as a research/reference tool and not actually contribute themselves feel welcome. Carlos 19:57, 4 August 2006 (MDT)

Right. These are only very rough ideas and not proposed final language. The statement would be on a page about Editing Policy, and the final language should be clear that it is referring to editing only. thoreaubred 20:01, 4 August 2006 (MDT)

Appealing to popular notions vs. promoting more accurate ones

I think I'm also going to write up a potential guideline or section in "what we are/what we are not" about how I think we should avoid conforming to popular misconceptions and instead promote more accurate information so as to potentially change those misconceptions. As an example, the subject of of whether Mars is a trilogy or three-volume novel has already come up a few times, and I'm always disappointed to find myself as the only person promoting the author's own conception of is as the latter, with everyone else suggesting that we should conform to the popular misconception that it is the former. I say, propagating popular misconceptions is for general sites to do, and why have an entire site like this devoted to Kim Stanley Robinson if not to provide a more informed (and informative) source of information about him? Explaining the things like this that many people don't currently know should be one of the main reasons for doing this project in the first place. thoreaubred 14:39, 7 August 2006 (MDT)

Let me just make this 100% clear - I am not in disagreement with you over whether Mars is a 'trilogy' or a 3 volume novel'. I just say that a trilogy is a 3 volume novel. No more, no less. To me it's not even an issue, as any trilogy is (or should be) a 3-volume work, in the same way a symphony is a 3-movement (or sometimes 4) peice of music. Carlos 16:22, 7 August 2006 (MDT)

• If that were the case, KSR would never have made the distinction in the first place.
• I think most people think of trilogies and multi-volume novels as different things. Otherwise, there would be no discussion over whether The Lord of the Rings is really a trilogy; but in fact there is. thoreaubred 16:27, 7 August 2006 (MDT)

In my observation, every group of fans like to think that 'their' trilogy is special, and one of the main ways they seem to do this is by touting the merits of it as a 'whole work' rather than a trio (or however many there is) of seperate entities. When I was younger and obsessed with Star Wars, it was all about how amazing it is as a whole story, and not 'just 3 films'. Likewise with LOTR - the most rabid fans seem to take offense when someone refers to it as '3 books' or '3 films'. They all indignantly reply 'It's not 3 books, it's one book split in 3', as though Tolkien was the first or only artist ever to conceive of such a concept. I just don't want to fall into the trap of being like this with 'Mars', and I haven't yet seen a compelling case for why Mars deserves this elevated status of 'more than just a trilogy' any more than Star Wars, LOTR, The Matrix, Back to the Future, or even the Star Wars prequels. Carlos 16:54, 7 August 2006 (MDT)

I think this sounds like a personal pet peeve of yours, and you're blurring together cases in which it is valid with what you perceive as fan prentensiousness across the board. In the case of Tolkien those fans are correct. Tolkien did indeed write a single novel, which was later broken into three pieces by his publishers. I understand that knowledgeable fans of something can probably come off as obnoxious to relatively newer or less knowledgable fans, when the newer fan has his previous conception of something shattered by what seem like a bunch of know-it-alls, and I probably come off that way sometimes as well, but the fact is that there are cases in which those more knowledgable fans are correct and the less knowledgable fan should avoid turning resentment of annoying fans into unwarranted stubbornness. If the creators of Star Wars, The Matrix, or Back To The Future go on record repeatedly saying that they consider their "trilogy" one work that was split up only for practical economic reasons (i.e. publishers don't think people will buy a 2,000 page book, movie studios don't think people will go to a 6-9 hour film, and in both cases a trilogy has brand marketability and they can charge more for three products than they could have charged for one), then that should be their prerogative. Of course, there are cases where it makes more sense, and cases where it seems more like the artist's retrospective pretension. But LOTR and Mars are both cases where it makes a lot of sense. It's not about "elevated status" and "more than just a trilogy", it's about a novel not being a trilogy, and the author's right to call his work what it is despite a lot of fans, and even heavy-handed publishers, trying to make it something else. thoreaubred 17:23, 7 August 2006 (MDT)

I think we must just disagree on what constitutes a 'trilogy'. In my view, if it's been chopped up into 3 for whatever reason, then it's a trilogy, regardless of who says what. A trilogy is well-defined term so an author does not have the right to try and redefine the term. Mars is 3 books - therefore a trilogy. I don't see how anything KSR says changes that as it is a matter of definition not interpretation. Can you imagine if an author came out and said 'Well my latest work is not a book, it's more of a super-volumnous literary expression of consciousness'. Aside from being a pretentious wanker, he'd be talking crap, because if he's going to print it on paper and bind it, then it's a book.

We may disagree on the definition of "trilogy", but just as I conceded my definition of "character" to be idiosyncratic, I'm afraid you should concede your definition of "trilogy" as idiosyncratic. You say it's well-defined, but note that the definition you linked to refers to "three works". Then you say, well, "Mars is 3 books". Three volumes, yes, but not three works according to the author (and by the way, are you saying that there is no such thing as a single work in multiple physical volumes?) thoreaubred 18:24, 7 August 2006 (MDT)

Ok yes, you can have a single work in three volumes, as obviously the physical limits of a book binding sometimes require this. See below for why I don't think Mars can quite get away with this excuse. Carlos 19:12, 7 August 2006 (MDT)

This page is getting so out of control that I'm not sure which comment below you're referring to. thoreaubred 22:48, 7 August 2006 (MDT)

And just for the record:

• George Lucas had a much bigger story drafted up before he realised he'd have to cut it down to make the first Star Wars film, so that's officially 'more than a trilogy' too.

If George Lucas wants Star Wars to be called a "film" and verbalizes that desire in a way that makes sense and doesn't sound like retrospective BS, then we should call Star Wars a film. If you're interviewing him and you refer to the Star Wars trilogy, and he says "Well actually I consider it one film in three parts..." then who are you to tell him he's wrong? thoreaubred 18:24, 7 August 2006 (MDT)

• LOTR is actually 6 books, as each volume contains 2 'books'.

It was written as a novel in 6 parts. Just as Tolstoy's Anna Karenina is a novel in 8 parts. Still one novel. thoreaubred 18:24, 7 August 2006 (MDT)

• The Wachowski brothers fully intended to build The Matrix into a trilogy (or one 3-film work, according to your definition) all along, which is obvious from the first film. (Pity they couldn't actually follow through with the potential they promised though.)

Same answer as with George Lucas, but keep in mind that having plans in one's head for sequels while only entering into production on one film is different than, say, the LOTR films in which they were produced all in one stretch and released in parts and they went along (just like Mars!) thoreaubred 18:24, 7 August 2006 (MDT)

• The first Back to the Future film clearly ends on a lead-in to a sequel, which would have probably at least been conceptualised (we know they're going to the Future.)

Again, it's up to the artist here, but also keeping in mind again what I said above. thoreaubred 18:24, 7 August 2006 (MDT)

I question how you would draw the line between what counts one way or the other. Is it what the author says? Or is it what the finished works themselves suggest. And let's just clarify this - KSR released Red Mars before he'd finished writing Green and Blue. He may have planned it all out storywise, but he still released Red Mars as a book in its own right. It's not as if he had a completed 2000 page novel, and was forced to arbitrarily cut it in 3. So really, he's no different to George Lucas or the Wachowski brothers in that sense. Certainly less so than Tolkien. If you could provide a compelling case for him having completed all 3 with no intention of them being split up, before Red Mars was published, I would think you had a compelling case for not considering them as a trilogy at all. However, I think you will find that he wrote Red Mars knowing full well that it would be the first volume in a greater series, and so consequently would have structured it appropriately. Carlos 17:56, 7 August 2006 (MDT)

The only difference between Robinson and Tolkien, as I have already explained elsewhere, is that Robinson was aware of the history (including Tolkien) and knew from common sense that a publisher wouldn't want a 2,000 page novel, and so rather than waiting until the novel was complete like Tolkien, he planned ahead and gave it to the publishers in sections. When he began writing the Mars novel, he did not yet know that it was going to be so long that it would have to be released in multiple volumes. It was when he was at least a hundred pages in and the colonists were just getting to Mars that he realized how long it was going to be, and started seeking advice from people about what to do, and decided to release it in sections. Now, this doesn't meet the standard you stated above in a strict literal sense, but you have to concede that it meets it in all reasonable and practical sense.

But here I think is the crux of this issue. If Robinson knew in advance that he was writing for a 3 volume work, then he would certainly have structured it slightly (maybe even very) differently than if he had the freedom to write one massive book. He would have made damn sure that Red Mars worked, on some level, as a book in its own right. And it does. Many people have read and enjoyed only Red Mars, but if you'd read only, say, the first half or 2/3 of Red Mars, you would know damn well that the story didn't end properly. Consequently, we end up with a three volume work, that is most certainly different (to what degree is a matter of debate) than it would have been if he had literally written and released it as one big book (which, yes, I concede could be physically cut in 3 for practical reasons). Carlos 19:02, 7 August 2006 (MDT)

You're going further and further down the road of your own subjective speculation. You have no basis for the claim that Robinson would have structured "Volume 1" any differently than he would have structured "Part 1". There is a long history of novels written in "Parts", and Parts are always structured in a way so that each part has it's own beginning and end, and of course does not break off at an arbitrary point in the narrative (and if it does so its author has no business dividing it into parts and is confused and misguided about the purpose of Parts to begin with.) You're using faulty logic when you conclude that if Red Mars doesn't break off in the middle of the narrative then he must have written it differently than he would have were he going to publish the novel all in one volume. So you're making a false argument here. thoreaubred 19:36, 7 August 2006 (MDT)

Yes, you're quite right about "Parts", but I would argue that if you're going to publish a 3-part book separately because each part is big enough to fill a whole book, then you've got yourself a trilogy there. Especially if you release the first 'Part' before you've even finished writing the latter 'Parts'. There not parts anymore, you've started a new work! (And round we go in the circle once again.) But maybe that's just me. Carlos 20:21, 7 August 2006 (MDT)

BTW does anyone else think we should cut and paste this discussion over to the Demimonde, because this Talk page is getting ridiculous!Carlos 20:21, 7 August 2006 (MDT)

And to address this: "I question how you would draw the line between what counts one way or the other. Is it what the author says? Or is it what the finished works themselves suggest." If those are the choices, then is has to be what the author says, because "what the finished works suggest" is subjective and a matter of opinion. Just because the majority of casual readers have given something a particular label does not mean that a more informed judge would conclude that the finished works somehow objectively suggest that label. If the masses of casual fans get to decide things like this, then there is no purpose for this wiki. thoreaubred 18:24, 7 August 2006 (MDT)

Yes and no. This is getting way off topic, but it's an interesting topic, so I'll give you some examples.

• If an author classifies his book as being of a certain genre, but experts and serious afficianados of that genre don't agree, then I don't think the author's categorization stands.
• If an author says 'My book is a humourous look at modern life', but no one finds it funny, then the author is wrong.
• If an author implies something, but leaves it ambiguous, and the majority of the readers interpret it a certain way, which is different to what the author secretly imagined in their own mind, then who's to say who is correct. eg. if you are meant to conclude at the end of a story that a character has killed himself, but nobody does, not even experienced readers, then an official canonisation of the story would have to conclude that the character had not killed himself. I wish I could think of a real-world example, but can't right now. Admittedly, this one is more a question of quality than authority, as it's the role of a decent writer to make sure his intentions are interpreted clearly. It's mainly in films where this kind of gross misunderstandings of a crappy director's intent is common.

All three of these things are false comparisons. First, there is a big difference between genre and effect, and form. The first two are far more open to interpretation, and I shouldn't even have to point that out. We're getting to a point here where I feel like I'm having to spell out things that should go without saying, as if you're making your arguments for the sake of argument but don't even believe them yourself, or you're fishing for technicalities and loopholes when you and I both know better. You're trying to take hypothetical scenarios in which an author intends to write a particular genre or to be funny and there is critical consensus to the contrary, and use it to support your personal overreading of these volumes as being more separate and distinct from each other than they are. Even if there were such an opinion among experts that for some reason what the author intended as a three-volume novel cannot be classified as such, but must be classified as a trilogy, then at that point we would form our opinions as to whether the author or the experts have a better case. But no such opinion exists, and there is no basis for belief that it ever will exist. Meanwhile, we have multitple statements from the author testifying to the fact that the work was planned as one novel, written as one novel, released in volumes as it was written for practical economic reasons. And to address your third item (because that was just the first two), now you're getting even more irrelevant, because there is no ambiguity here; the author is on record. It's not as if one faction of experts is arguing that it's one novel and another faction is arguing that it's a trilogy, and the author's view is ambiguous or absent. On the contrary, the author's view is crystal clear. thoreaubred 19:36, 7 August 2006 (MDT)

Anyway, the issue of authority over a work is an interesting one, and hopefully we can have a more indepth discussion about it at some point. I will agree with you in so much as you have to give an author a large degree of authority when talking about his own works, but I don't think that authority is absolute, and is certainly limited by the rules off common sense, logic and - to a very limited degree to be sure - reader interpretation. Carlos 19:02, 7 August 2006 (MDT)

I've already said that I don't give an artist absolute authority. As I said above, sometimes a case can be made based on the way the author expresses himself after the fact that he's taking restrospective poetic license to his own career and reimagining what he had in mind earlier. But in other cases the artist's explanation makes perfect, simple sense. You're creating an imaginary group of critics and experts who disagree with Robinson on this to add weight to your argument, when no such group exists. Robinson's authority is not at odds with anyone else's authority, and only if and when that changes (though to imagine that it ever will is pure speculation) should this argument even be taking place. thoreaubred 19:36, 7 August 2006 (MDT)

Ok, I'll stick to more realistic examples now. I was just using 'extremes' to get the idea across that just because an author says something that doesn't necessarily make it so, and I apologize if I was indeed stating the obvious. However, (and there's always a 'however', isn't there?) let's just look at this specific case. You would agree that if an author says 'My book is not a novel', when it's a fictional story told in narrative form in 100,000 words, then it's a novel regardless of what the author says. So when KSR says 'Mars is not a trilogy' but here I have 3 different books, pulished in 3 different years, each telling 3 quite distinct chapters of a story, then you must concede that there is some grounds to question whether he has the right to make this claim, author or no. It really just comes down to one's understanding of what strictly defines a trilogy. As you pointed out, I may have a unique interpretation of the term, but that's probably because all the trilogies I've ever really liked (all the ones mentioned earlier) fall into the category of being 'one big story split into 3 parts'. But as they're pretty well-known stories, I doubt I would be alone in this understanding. If 'trilogy' is more stricly defined than what I think it is (which really comes down to the definition of a 'work' - oh dear, here we go again!), then fine, I will adjust my definition of the word. However, if the definition of trilogy turns out to be somewhat loose, then KSR saying it's not a trilogy is no more correct than me saying it is. Just because he is the author does not mean his definition of the word 'trilogy' is any way more accurate than mine. Carlos 19:54, 7 August 2006 (MDT)

A this point if I respond point-by-point we're going to start going in circles again, so let me just respond to the most important point there:

"You would agree that if an author says 'My book is not a novel', when it's a fictional story told in narrative form in 100,000 words, then it's a novel regardless of what the author says. So when KSR says 'Mars is not a trilogy' but here I have 3 different books, pulished in 3 different years, each telling 3 quite distinct chapters of a story, then you must concede that there is some grounds to question whether he has the right to make this claim, author or no."

Here you've constructed analogy that is dependant upon your selective, idiosyncratic subbornness about the word "trilogy". I say selective because you continue to insist that "3 books"=trilogy, period, and you've ignored my comments about the history of multi-volume works and my question to you as to whether you believe that any type of single work in multiple physical volumes can exist. You're also sticking to your story on "3 quite distinct chapters of a story", and I think if we could poll readers, or (and especially) experts, I don't think you would have much support on that. I think you're exaggerating how distinct these sections are. I've read the books two or three times, and I can assure you that the narrative style is exactly the same throughout, and the each volume picks up where the last one left off (in the case of #3, mere minutes after #2 left off.) So what you're doing here is making an analogy in which you imagine a hypothetical author's outlandish claim that a "100,000-word fictional narrative" is not a novel, and you're suggesting that it's just as eccentric to suggest that "3 books" is not a trilogy. It's just not a valid comparison, because "three books" is not the only criterion for a trilogy, and "three books" can be other things than a trilogy. A square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not always a square, and a trilogy is three books but three books is not always a trilogy. thoreaubred 20:19, 7 August 2006 (MDT)

Yes, but if there is a definition of a trilogy - ie. a clearly defined set of paramters into which it must fit - then I may be totally wrong, but so might KSR. If you're willing to agree that a trilogy is a clearly defined thing, then quoting KSR as saying that Mars is not a trilogy is totally irrelevant. Can you just state for the record whether you think that:

• a)A 'trilogy' is a well-defined term, like 'novel', 'short story' 'chapter' etc,. or:
• b)It is up to each individual author to decide whether his/her work is a trilogy or not, or:
• c)Something else entirely that I'm just not getting.

Carlos 20:31, 7 August 2006 (MDT)

c) It is only relevant that whether something is a trilogy is open to interpretation if one of the following is true:

• The author's opinion is not known.
• There is expert opinion at odds with the author's opinion.

If neither of those is true, and the author himself says "this isn't a trilogy, it's a three-volume novel", then it's utterly irrelevant that the work arguably meets the criteria for a trilogy. X meeting the criteria for Y does not make X Y, it only makes it possible for X to be Y if X isn't already something else (Z) that can't be Y. In this case, the author himself says "it's not Y, it's Z", and if Z could be Y then "it's not Y, it's Z" would be a superfluous statement that would never have been made in the first place, meaning that Z can't be Y and therefore X can't be Y. thoreaubred 20:49, 7 August 2006 (MDT)

OK, so you're saying then that the definition of a trilogy is different kind of thing altogether than the definition of a novel. You say:"X meeting the criteria for Y does not make X Y, it only makes it possible for X to be Y '.

But that's not the case for a novel, which is the point I was trying to make earlier. If work X fits the criteria of a novel (Y), then it is a novel, regardless of what anyone says. Ie. All works that fit criteria Y(novel) are novels. Is this not correct?

In which case you are arguing that a trilogy is different, in that the set of all items that fit the criteria for a trilogy is greater than the set of all trilogies. Is this what you're saying? If so, then doesn't that mean that what you're actually doing is just adding one more criterion, which is 'the author's view'. Then, once you add that criterion to the others, then you do have a matching set where all items that meet the criteria for a trilogy (including your new one) is the same set as 'all trilogies'. Is this correct?

I await your clarification. Carlos 21:12, 7 August 2006 (MDT)

I would agree on a practical level that all works that fit the critera you named--100,000 pages, fiction, narrative form--are novels, though there might be rare exceptions I'm not thinking of. The problem is that your criterion for a trilogy is "3 books". It's only one criterion, and it's not enough to make everything that meets that criterion a trilogy, because "3 books" can also be other things, whereas "100,000 fictional narrative" cannot. All I'm saying is that if the only criterion for a trilogy is "3 books"--which it is for the purpose of your analogy--then yes, it's different from your criteria for a novel, which are three criteria and narrow things down quite a bit more than just "3 books". Now, an analgous criterion for a novel to your criterion for a trilogy is "1 book". If the criterion for a novel is "1 book", well there are other types of books, so there are other things that "1 book" can be. That's why you analogy was flawed.

As for the stuff about "sets" and all that, I have to admit that you're approaching a level of rhetorical debate that I don't often engage in, so the concept of "sets" isn't immediately familiar to me. So hopefully what I've already said is a clarification of why I found your analogy to be flawed. If you're asking me to define three criteria for a trilogy so as to even out the analogy, well, it's your analogy so that burden is on you. You're the one trying to prove a positive: that if something is three books then it has to be a trilogy. What I'm saying is that when the author himself says it's one novel, and there is no other authorative opinion at odds with his opinion, then it's a novel, and whether it would be possible for it to be a trilogy were he not on record saying it's a novel is irrelevant. thoreaubred 22:42, 7 August 2006 (MDT)

Ok, I think I'm getting where you're coming from. Sorry for resorting to quasi-formal logic, but it looked like that's where you were headed with the whole 'If X is Y' business. First of all, I never said that my full criteria for a trilogy was '3 books'. I was just trying to establish that there was a criteria, like there is a criteria for a novel. Because my point was that if there are specific criteria for precicely defining a trilogy, regardless of whether you and I agree on they may be, then that makes your claim that KSR said something irrelevant. However, then you went and threw a curveball by suggesting that what the author claims it to be is actually one of the criteria required! I'm not really sure what I think of this, but it doesn't really sit right with me. I don't know that KSR has the right to call his work 'not a trilogy' if there exists specific, objective criteria for what does and does not count as a trilogy. I can understanding him saying this as it helps to emphasize the important 'one story' aspect of it, but I'm not sure that it really trumps objective criteria (if they exist, that is.). Carlos 22:57, 7 August 2006 (MDT)

I'm not sure that I said that the author's opinion is a criterion. I think may X Y Z thing may have gone down the wrong track. I don't know why I employed it, but what I was trying to emphasize was my point that "3 books" wasn't enough to make it a trilogy, it was only enough to make it possible for it to be a trilogy, while it could still be other things as well, and that if the possibility of it being a trilogy is your only criterion for insisting that it is one, that's not enough to overrule the author saying that it isn't one. The thing is that you're the one trying to overrule KSR's opinion that it's one novel in three volumes, but I'm being put into a position where I'm defending his opinion and the burden of proof is being put on me, when it should be solely on you from the beginning because you're trying to overturn his opinion with nothing but hypoetheticals and theroetical possibilities. We begin with the default that he says it's one multi-volume novel, then you declare that he's wrong and it's a trilogy, so you need to to prove a positive, that it's a trilogy, but instead you're asking me to prove a negative, that it's not a trilogy.

With that said, I'm a little too tired to be continuing this debate right now without just confusing myself, so I'm gonna try to make that my final comment for today. thoreaubred 23:09, 7 August 2006 (MDT)

Righto, you go get some sleep, and I'll prepare my Final Positive Proof, as requested. Mwa ha ha ha... Carlos 23:15, 7 August 2006 (MDT)

Oh, it's not quite my bedtime yet, just time for me to move from tasks that require thought to robot tasks. Hah. thoreaubred 23:25, 7 August 2006 (MDT)